Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Contagion


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sacred Contagion
To put it bluntly: complete bollocks. Mike Peel 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Yeah, it probably is complete bullocks, but it does seem to be part of certain belief systems. I found the term in use going back at least to 1911: it gets a mention in the famous 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Taboo as part of the desription of a Tongan purification rite.  It also shows up in similar context in Frazer's The Golden Bough.  The term seems to have originated with Émile Durkheim.  It remains in use to day, as this shows it in the title of a modern theological paper. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I'm having a go at rewriting this and bringing it up to scratch. I've removed every word of the original content, and rewritten it so that, while short, it's at least verifiable and makes sense. I'll see what else I can find. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for rewriting the article. Now that the article is no longer trying to be pseudoscience, I no longer believe that the article should be deleted. In other words, I now retract my nomination (or alternatively, vote keep). Mike Peel 20:08, 11 October 2006 (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.