Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folk Christianity


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Tan  &#124;   39  15:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Folk Christianity

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is entirely original research. My research on the term indicates that it is a term that is not clearly defined. Explanations vary from any Christian church that mixes Christianity with various things (folk culture, animism, superstitions, etc). Therefore, I don't think that the article can be rescued by rewriting with proper references. The article basically synthesizes other ideas into a well written essay. See "Folk Christianity is" and "Folk Christianity" Google results. -- Trödel 23:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete. I stumbled across this article a few days ago and dug around for some sources but came up empty.  There are a few sources that used the term in a passing manner, but nothing to satisfy WP:RS.  This article reads like an essay; the "bibliography" section at the end with sources that do not appear to cover the topic in detail seem to back up the notion that this is little more than an original research project that someone has chosen to publish here. Shereth 00:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plain Google web searches are pretty useless for articles about subjects outside of pop culture or current events. Google Books and Google Scholar searches show that this is a very well-defined term, which comes under the general subject of Syncretism. The article on syncretism already has a strong bias towards Christianity, and is getting quite long, so it would be best for this to be a separate article. I would urge those with an interest in improving our coverage of this topic to work towards making Folk Christianity a summary style sub-article of Syncretism. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The books you reference define this term differently; therefore, I don't think it is yet a defined concept that could be included as a Wikipedia article. It is defined as: the Christianity practiced by a conquered people, Christianity as most people live it, a term to overcome the the division of beliefs into orthodox and unorthodox, the impact of superstition on Christianity as practiced by certain geographical Christian groups, defining Christianity in cultural terms without reference to the theologies and histories. Interestingly, despite your claim that a google search is useless outside pop culture or current events, my understanding has not been deepened by using your search suggestion, but rather it seems even more diversly defined, while inclusive of the definition that my brief survey had previously revealed. This is most likely because I spent more time reviewing the books you referenced to see if I was missing something. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case and I still think the term is not well defined, is used rarely, and should not have an article. -- Trödel 23:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, this looks like an acknowledgment that there are verifiable, authoritative RS for this topic. If the RS differ from what the article says that would be an argument to edit the article, to make it correspond to the RS -- not deletion.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Notable subject & there are references. Problems can be fixed by editing. "folk religion" is an accepted topic, and it can obviously be divided by religion.DGG (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- as above... Geo Swan (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; ruthlessly prune the OR and there is a stub of RS material - which could be and should be developed. Springnuts (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Springnuts and DGG. There are at least the basics for an article here, and there seems to be notability. The content may well be poor but that's a different matter and not necessarily something relevant to this discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger: 633 hits on Google Books, 285 on Scholar. Many reliable sources. Useful topic is a nice bonus rather than a reason against deletion, but no reasons for deletion remain unchallenged. Anarchangel (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.