Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stolen body hypothesis


 * 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. the consensus is clearly to keep, & I see no valid argument for deletion; even if this is fringe, its well weithin the sort of fringe that we include as notable   DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Stolen body hypothesis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is mostly made up of fringe ideas from both apologists and skeptics being given undue weight. The subject should be a summarized section in the Resurrection of Jesus or Empty tomb article. LittleJerry (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit / Procedural note: This nomination was pretty much invisible because nominator did not apply afd2 to generate the header. As such, I'm removing it from the January 4 log and adding it to the January 7 log, as I doubt anybody saw it on the Jan 4 list where it appeared to be an irrelevant comment on Articles for deletion/Dive Rite which was listed above it. Additionally, nominator did not use the required edit summary of "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see (debate)", so this appeared to be a standard edit on watchlists. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Yes, many of the ideas from both the apologists and the Dan Brown-esque conspiracy types are flaky.  However, they indisputably exist and can be sourced, which is all that matters.  It's a notable theory, although the original wave of "prove weird events that are kind of based on the Bible" has passed and was strongest from 1900-1970 or so.  Wikipedia certainly covers such ideas anyway (stuff like The Passover Plot, say) even when they don't have currency now.  Even a quick Google search shows that the apologist side of the debate is still deployed against this issue, which again would probably be sufficient even if *nobody* ever believed it (a la the Satanic ritual abuse panic).  Sample links just from the first page of Google results on "Jesus body stolen disciples": ,  ,.


 * To be clear, yes the article is currently bad and needs more sources, but I've actually intended to improve this article with proper scholarly sources since I found it a month ago - I recently tried to make the article less horrible than it was before. There's definitely enough material for it. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes but Wikipedia isn't supposed to give undue weight to fringe ideas. The Resurrection of Jesus article was made up of a back and forth between apologists and skeptics arguing over whether it happened or no. Thankfully it was restructured and the debate over it's authenticity being addressed in the "Origin of the narrative" section and citing repected textual critics rather than people who are simply try to prove or disprove it. They can be cited but we should give too much detail to their fringe ideas. LittleJerry (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Two points. One, I'm not sure this can be so lightly dismissed as "fringe."  Fringe now perhaps, but clearly relevant at one time (the Dialogue with Trypho citation in the article is pretty ancient), and still not considered entirely dead judging by the above apologetics websites.  Wikipedia contains articles on plenty of theological debates and theories that seem utterly nonsensical to modern eyes, yet once were relevant.  Second, assume it is "fringe" - if anything, it would be undue weight to fully discuss the hypothesis in the Resurrection of Jesus article, and I say this as someone who is a fan of merges of small topics to bigger ones in general.  If it's as fringe an idea as you suggest, then it should merit no more than a paragraph in the Resurrection article.  Yet I feel that - once the article is straightened out - there is certainly room for considerably more than one paragraph of sourced content (including material from "respected textual critics" who I'm sure have covered this debate as well).  So it's deserving of an article, just as sufficiently sourced astrology topics or apocryphal saints who probably didn't exist have articles. SnowFire (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment / update. Chatted with someone on this and apparently The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave covers this from the skeptical scholarly position.  (I don't imagine it'll be hard to dig up the apologetic side of the argument, as that's mostly already in the article, and this book apparently includes some original apologetic material anyway even if it's being responded to.)  Sadly none of the bookstores in my area have this in stock - I called - but I have this on mail order now and will update the article once I get it and have read through it.  (Or, if there's really nothing there, I'll be happy to help merge the article after all, but I find that chance incredibly unlikely.) SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A fairly important concept or idea in Western culture. Even if the article is rough it has some good information. A merge to Resurrection of Jesus is possible. Maybe what is needed is two articles: One which considers Jesus' resurrection as a (possible) real event and one that discusses its spiritual/cultural significance.Kitfoxxe (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Personally, I do not believe this theory, but it has been sincerely held view, ever since the Resurrection of Jesus (or according to the theory non-resurrection). It is thus a notable topic, which deserves an article that can be designated as a "main" article to the relevant section of the Resurrection article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2011 (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.