Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaculate Conception of Saint John the Baptist


 * 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   delete. I don't know much about Catholic doctrine, but it appears consensus is that this is largely WP:OR. v/r - TP 01:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception of Saint John the Baptist

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Pure WP:OR no scholarly references for support, and cited references do not support the claims made History2007 (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference sources contain the Papal Encyclical from 1894, from the official Vatican website. An excerpt of Blessed Anne Emmerich's vision's published book as well as description of the Saint John the Baptist from New Advent: the Catholic Encyclopaedia (under the Section: The conception of St. John the Baptist) within the umbrella of the Immaculate Conception article. LoveforMary (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)LoveForMary


 * Keep with reservations. Personally, I do not subscribe to this sort of religious belief, and it seems to me, based on what I have read, that it is somewhat "fringe" within the realm of Catholic doctrine. However, the article claims that it is not a heretical belief, and it seems justified by at least one papal pronouncement.  I would feel better about the article if it was edited and referenced (and perhaps even renamed) by an editor with a good command of Catholic doctrine.  However, I am not comfortable with deleting the article unless a much more compelling argument is made.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  08:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is how errors accumulates in Wikipedia. I am sorry Cullen, your statements are inorrect, but I guess you get to cast a vote. This is Wikipedia. Exactly where in IUCUNDA SEMPER EXPECTATIONE does the word "immaculate" appear? It does not. There is no papal support. That statement is just incorrect in the article and is incorrect here. And there is no reference to state that this belief is in anyway followed by Catholics at large. A good indication that this is just an invention and a WP:OR fabrication is that Ann Ball's book Encyclopedia of Catholic Devotions and Practices does not mention it at all, neither do Petrisko's multiple books. Neither do any other major Catholic devotional books. That is why it has not even been commented on. As for an "editor with a good command of Catholic doctrine" please find one. I am not going to spend time cleaning up pure WP:OR. This can not be salvaged for it is just incorrect. This is an example of how Wikipedia gets loaded with fabrications that then get quoted elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, since your comment Cullen, the article author deleted the claim about papal endorsement. There is no papal endorsement, and the papal item is irrelevant to that article. History2007 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note, History2007, that I expressed reservations about keeping the article, my support was clearly conditional, and I asked for a more compelling argument to delete. You are in the process of making a more compelling case, and point out the lack of discussion of this belief in named sources. The edit withdrawing the claim of papal support is another point in your favor.  You do not need to criticize me in order to win your argument here - my desire to have a fuller discussion of this matter is a sincere one, and does not deserve your condemnation.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  09:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, yes, you did have reservations. But all of this eats time faster than Pac-Man gobbles up things. I have spent enough time on this now. But it is really WP:OR, e.g. the statements about Catherine of Sienna, etc. have nothing to do with conception, neither does Emmerich's etc. Just as a formality Google scholar shows zero support and Google books finds nothing on this topic. But then this is Wikipedia. Anyone can type anything to start a page and eat up time faster than Pac-man ... sigh... History2007 (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Pure OR and "creative" interpretation of sources. Google search turned up no evidence that the concept is a notable one in either Catholic or Orthodox thought. Delete in its entirety. There is nothing of encyclopedic value here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article should be kept, but it should renamed as "The Prenatal Sanctification of St. John the Baptist." His sanctification was achieved after he was conceived but before he was born. He was conceived in a state of original sin. Immaculate Conception implies not being conceived in original sin. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are already asserting that the basic tenet of the article is incorrect. That is good. But you need to show notability for the new name if that one is to survive. But that also gets nothing on G-Books and is also not notable. So this can not count as a Keep vote for that new name is also not notable, and also does not correspond to the current content. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to John the Baptist. It is clear that the article is misnamed. The sources currently provided that do mention this concept merely say that he was "sanctified in his mother's womb." One sentence can be added to the latter article and cited to the encyclical and Catherine of Siena. There is not enough for a full article and what we have now is mostly original research. Elizium23 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: per StAnselm's work below. Elizium23 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is WP:OR and the author has now stated on the talk page that the article is an "inventionspeculation". It may fit well in the John the Baptist page which alas is also full of errors, starting from his date in the infobox, as I said there back in October. If we don't spend time on this stuff, we may get to clean up the existing errors on that page. History2007 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to John the Baptist. This is an original essay which should probably be distilled into a small subsection of the biographical article. Wikipedia is not a collection of theological essays. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A "small" section in the John article may work provided the term "Immaculate" is avoided - for that is just incorrect. The term to use is "sanctification". But should the merge happen, the article title with the term Immaculate should still be deleted to avoid confusion when the term is searched. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article has already spawned a thread at Catholic Answers Forum. Elizium23 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Check the Vatican website next week. It may have become a dogma by then.... History2007 (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. No need to merge, since I have added the relevant quotes to the John the Baptist article. The article was never about John's conception, only his alleged sinlessness after being filled with the Holy Spirit. StAnselm (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A conception does not become immaculate by an event after the conception&mdash;the article title is nonsensical; or in Wikipedia terms, cannot be WP:V verified.  Unverifiable titles should be deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but as Conception of Saint John the Baptist. The article deals with a feast of his conception and with the question as to whether this was immaculate, as certain Christians have allegedly believed.  However, I doubt they believed it was immaculate in the sense that Jesus' conception was, as that would presumably mean that Zachariah was not his father.  Merger should not be an option, as this would unbalance the target article.  In response to what is above, an article about the views of recorded historical persons is not WP:OR.  There is something here that is well worth rescuing.  Note I am not a Catholic, and do not accept that the views expressed are correct, but that is my POV!  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the article content is not about his conception, but talks about post-conception issues... And I am sorry, but I should note that the conception of Jesus is not considered immaculate by "any" group of Christians. It is the conception of Mary that is considered immaculate. So the article has created overall confusion even among those judging its merits. History2007 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - there may be a notable topic somewhere in the vicinity of what this article covers, but neither the article title nor its content is salvageable. According to the article's own sources, John's conception was not immaculate and wasn't all that notable either despite being the subject of a feast. John's supposed sinlessness throughout his life has nothing to do with the conception, and the article's coverage seems a synthesis from unrelated sources. Huon (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the feast and other ideas above, see Nativity of St. John the Baptist.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Relevant subject seems to already be discussed at the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. The relevant basic content could be merged there, and then, if there is sufficient external notable discussion, could potentially be spunout at that time. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2012 (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.