Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy anointing oil


 * 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 (non-admin closure) Darkspots (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy anointing oil

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

The reason is that it is basically Original Research. Its trying to assert that the bible commands the use of cannabis, or other hallucinogens; this is certainly not a mainstream view. It is essentially a WP:POVFORK of Chrism and Shemen Afarsimon.


 * Delete. It should be deleted and replaced with a disambiguation page between the latter two articles. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no original research in this article. It could use some expansion. It is not a POVFORK in that it is not the same subject matter as Chrism or Shemen Afarsimon and past discussions to merge these separate articles have been resolved against doing so. &mdash;Whig (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I checked the parts of the bible and the short article is correct and should stay and can be expanded. Neozoon —Preceding comment was added at 23:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see any reason to suspect this is a POV fork. AFAICT, all it does is describe what the oil is and where it is/was/legendarily-said-to-be used. I'd lean towards merging elsewhere unless someone can expand this article to show that it has some significance beyond being mentioned in the Bible a few times. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Inclined to keep with a discussion of why this is not 100% identified with chrism (although some sources do so). There was much discussion of this in 19th-century Christian literature (see Great Awakenings) from a Google Books search and this could easily be expanded. There are also sufficient sources to show that at least one valid interpretation of kanabos is indeed cannabis (and sheesh, there are examples aplenty of religious use of psychotropics, so this is hardly revolutionary). --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - barely notable, but referenced. Not sure of what's the problem. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this is a genuine biblical subject, though the article is only a stub. The interpretation as to the identity of the ingredients may be controversial, but that is a question for correction or discussion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion nomination quotes Original Research but the article has an external reference with the original text, and the article "translates" the ingredients into everyday english. I would prefer to see the article expanded.  Bardcom (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs expansion not deletion. The other articles on the Holy oil disambiguation page do not deal directly with this subject. MishaPan (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2008 (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.