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 no consensus to delete. Sounds like a merge might be in order, but that's an editorial decision. -- Y not? 05:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in early Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a content fork from Christianity and anti-Semitism and covers same material located at Anti-Judaism. Comments on the Christianity WikiProject noticeboard indicate the article is fraught with original research and was tagged as OR soon after creation. ColonelHenry (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE as nom.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Antisemitism in early Christianity is a very different topic than Antisemitism in other periods, with its own controversies and sets of cultural assumptions. I don't believe it is a mere content fork. I also don't see OR as a major problem in the article, though we should always be vigilant against OR. It's easy to imagine that the controversial nature of the topic will sway some editors to vote "keep" or "delete" at least in part in an attempt to over- or under-emphasize the importance of antisemitism in early Christianity, but when you simply look at the application of policy, this doesn't look like a content fork to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, it was tagged as WP:OR for 6 years. Once I removed all the un-referenced WP:OR,[1] there were 7 basically off-topic references that fit better into other existing articles (e.g. anti-Semitism and the New Testament). The idea that anti-Semitism (as opposed to anti-Judaism) existed prior to roughly the 13th century is a minority view. I'm all for keeping minority views off in their own articles but some editor has to at least go through the effort to find even one radical scholar somewhere in support of the basic thesis of such an article. It's been 6 years, and no one has yet bothered to do that. Even the external reading list is suspect. Three Popes and the Jews, as one I picked at random, is about 3 Popes who lived in the 20th century! Editors can't just throw a bunch of random claptrap on Wikipedia and hope that it sticks. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not a POV or content fork, but rather a valid spin-off on a particular historical period. I don't see any obvious OR, and the sourcing looks solid. Article MAY have been tagged as OR at some point in the past, but there is no evidence of a problem at present. I see no article talk page activity for almost a year. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the original research. The problem is, afterwards, there was no there there. The remaining research is only vaguely relevant to the topic at hand. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not a POV or content fork, notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Fix per WP:SUMMARY. This must be seen as a spin-off article of Anti-Semitism and Christianity, but it's not done the right way. The spin-off article is supposed to be the more detailed one, and the main article shall include a summary of the spin-off. Here it's the opposite: The main article covers anti-Semitism in the early period and in the NT far more extensively than the spin-off, which is very light-weight and has very little historical facts; in addition to being very short, about half of it is made up of opinions of scholars about how anti-Semitism then relates to current days anti-Semitism. I have nothing in principle against a spin-off article for early Christianity if there is consensus that the main article is getting to long, but than it must be a real spin-off, adequately synchronized with the main article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Iselilja that this reverses the spin-off with Antisemitism in early Christianity being the summary of a section of Christianity and anti-Semitism. It appears that Antisemitism in early Christianity is a fork of the early Christianity section of Christianity and anti-Semitism. But the section in Christianity and anti-Semitism isn't adequately sourced and is also problematic. One would hoped that the early Christianity section of the original article would be improved and expanded before editors felt the need to move it to an article of its own. By the way, Anti-Judaism has the best referenced material on the same topic. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and merge info from the relevant sections of Christianity and anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism here. Ansh666 06:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue. The topic of this article should clearly be covered in Wikipedia, so this is a question of how to organise our coverage. That's something that should be discussed on article and wikiproject (I hate all these wiki- prefixed words, but I suppose we're stuck with them) talk pages rather than by considering one article for deletion in isolation. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why, per WP:HOAX, should a topic which can't be reliably sourced be covered in Wikipedia? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think WP:HOAX is the thing you were looking for here... Ansh666 17:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep - The article in its current state isn't much. Having said that, from what I can see, this topic on its own seems to meet basic notability guidelines. I agree it should more or less probably be a spin-out of Antisemitism and Christianity, and that there should be a bit more effort to coordinate those articles. I am still (it's been months now, I admit that) in the process of getting together lists of articles and sub-articles in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which is 10,000 or so pages long, has a really sickening number of article subdivisions in some cases, several articles included in one edition not included in the other, both ways, and other difficulties in getting it together, but I think/hope/pray/irrationally optimisticly believe that it may be finished in the next week or month or so, and that we can hopefully should be able to do a better job on a lot of these articles at that time. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since this albeit shortish article (as it stands now, but will hopefully be improved soon) that, reflecting a core WP:CONSENSUS of a WP:NOTABLE topic is that it has been around for six years now [2] (WP must take the length of its own existence seriously!) and it does WP:CITE a few good WP:RS. This is serious topic in and of itself that deserves at "worst" a Template ((Expand)). IZAK (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Citing reliable sources is very easy to do. I could cite an article from Time Magazine about nuclear power on an article about those Alien bats living on the moon. And, hey, gee, you can't delete that article now: it has a WP:Citation from a WP:Reliable source! -- Kendrick7^talk 01:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above - the topic is a the subject of much serious academic debate among theologians and historians. It is a very controversial topic. Contrary to the rationale given in the proposed deletion that preceded this AFD, it is not necessary for a Wikipedia article to "prove it's thesis". It is sufficient to demonstrate that the thesis is a notable topic among academic and/or professional circles. There is no doubt that this is true for this topic. The article needs expansion and better sourcing. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sourcing, such as it is,[3] does not support the topic of the article. The first source is about a tax created by pagan Rome. The second source is about a modern interpretation of the New Testament, for which we already have an article. The third source is to an obituary of an academic who died recently, whose opinion in the fourth source is, again, on the topic of anti-Semitism and the New Testament. The fifth source is to that same author's opinion regarding the need for Christian repentance about the 20th century Holocaust. The sixth is more or less talking about anti-Judaism. The seventh and final source is about how to translate a certain word from ancient Greek. It's all sound and thunder signifying nothing. If, as per the above "the topic is a the subject of much serious academic debate among theologians and historians" then why, after all these years, has there not been a single relevant source brought to bear on the article? And, now even after days of this deletion discussion, why hasn't anyone above who has voted "Keep" been able to muster a single relevant source? I'd strongly suggest the answer is that WP:HOAX is fully in play. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for me, it's because I'm advocating merging other sections that are better-sourced into this article. Ansh666 21:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • N.B. I would have no problem with the re-creation of this article at a future date if an editor could pull together real sourcing. I would gladly change my vote should someone rescue the article from its continual state of non-repair. Normally, I'm that guy in most AFD discussions, but as I mentioned above, I agree with mainstream scholarship, and believe that claiming Christianity was poisoned by anti-Semitism from day one is anachronistic. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, topic is irredeemably POV and SYN. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete and start again -- This is essentially reporting the view of a few modern writers. The subject is much more fully and better dealt with in Christianity and anti-Semitism. An article with the presetn title might well be useful, but this is not it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Just read the article in its entirety and I can't see how it's content is actually on topic at all Jasonfward (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back, or delete - the consensus has become very anti-FORK lately. 17:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. It's rather hard to find an exact criterion to cite, but the article's content simply doesn't reflect the subject, and claims of "antisemitism" are drawn by the article from a variety of sources, none of which really mention "antisemitism in early Christianity" as an explicit topic. I guess maybe WP:original synthesis works? At any rate, the content's not enyclopedic. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm the creator of this article and I've already !voted above to Keep the article. However, I thought a short explanation might be helpful to help the closing admin and other editors understand how we got to the current situation. This topic is very controversial and some editors have argued that it should be deleted because the "case is not proven". IMO, Wikipedia is not about reporting what the truth is but about reporting what other reliable sources assert may be the truth. Thus, if this is an important topic of academic scholarship and debate (which it is), then it should be kept. Originally, this article was intended to be a spin-off detailed article from the main article Christianity and anti-Semitism to allow for a lengthier treatment per WP:SUMMARY. Over time, the article has been eviscerated to the point where there is more information in the main article than there is in this article. So, of course, it looks like this article should be deleted or merged back into the parent. I disagree with this recommendation. This article should start with the relevant content in Antisemitism and Christianity (much of which is currently weakly sourced) and then expand it with better sources and more detail. I would like to do this but I haven't the time at the moment. So... I think the proper resolution is "Keep but expand and improve sourcing". If the decision is to "Delete", I would ask the closing admin to add a closing comment that leaves open the possibility for re-creation of an article under the same title but with encyclopedic content. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If consensus is to delete, you can ask for WP:Userfication as well. Ansh666 21:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. But edit and update thoroughly. This is a very important aspect of antisemitism that must be addressed- deleting this article (without replacing it) would be whitewashing much of early antisemitism. This article should include many more specific details, but be kept overall. 98.216.189.103 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Adam Druit[reply]

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.