Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism

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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism[edit]

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

Although heavily footnoted, this article appears to be largely original research wherein the author synthesizes his or her own non-neutral conclusion based on disparate sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Original research can be fixed. I'm pretty sure articles are to be deleted only if improving is not actually possible and/or the subject lacks notability. NotARealWord (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is really original research, that's one thing that cannot be fixed. From WP:NOR: "The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable secondary sources exist, then the article can be improved/fixed, even if removing the original research means having to rewrite the article entirely. Deletion is only if such sources cannot be found. That having been said, I'm not voting to "keep" since I'm not sure whether or not such sources exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotARealWord (talk • contribs)

I think "keep unless sources cannot be found" is too strong - one can never prove that a source for a proposition like this does not exist, and "keep in the hope that one day sources may be found from which it can be totally rewritten" is not a practical policy. It depends on the likelihood of sources and of a rewrite. A reading of the text will usually give a good feel for whether the author is summarising someone else's view or advancing his own; given reasonable time, the burden of proof is on the author, or the defenders of an article, to show the sources for the conclusion. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, specifically sythesis. This is an impressively-researched and carefully-written piece, but what the author does is use his sources to reach definitions of "Christian mysticism" and "Evangelical mysticism" which he can contrast to make his point: that they differ. That point seems to me to be original and not found in the sources; this is exactly the "analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources" prohibited by WP:No original research. Indeed his definitions of the two types of mysticism seem themselves to be verging on synthesis from the fairly widely diverse use of the various terms by the sources.

It is possible that this article might be acceptable to our sister project Wikiversity; I do not know enough about that project to be sure, but it would be worth the author's while to investigate. Another possibility is Wikademia (not a Wikimedia project) which explicitly welcomes original research. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR: it's an essay, not an article. Jonathunder (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move some of the content of the article to Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism articles : The article started at the article Christian mysticism, where researchers wanted to make contributions to the article Christian mysticism, to show how it is Gnostic mysticism, and not Christian mysticism. For that conclusion MANY sources are available. But such changes were not approved of by the Wiki administrator. The article Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism doesn't allow for a neutral and thorough overview of the two streams, and because edits were not approved of to advance more neutrality, this (comparative) article was the only other option. See the discussion board on Christian mysticism.(WalkingInTheLight2
or Rename and combine : Rename the article "mysticisms in Christianity" and combine the articles on Evangelical mysticism and Christian mysticism in one article, looking at the streams of mysticisms from various angles. Changing this article slightly.(WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment The discussion at Talk:Christian mysticism seems to point to the following sequence of events:

WalkingInTheLight2 (talk · contribs) came into the discussion with a lot of new, unsourced ideas about the topic
Walking was told that his ideas sounded more like personal reflections and a sermon than like an encyclopedia entry
Walking suggested that perhaps a new article could be written that expounded upon his ideas
Without any other users commenting on whether that would be a good idea, went ahead and wrote said new article.

Walking's suggestion that "researchers wanted to make contributions to the article" seems specious: Walking wanted to make contributions, and others told him his contributions weren't really appropriate, so he wrote his own article. While I would agree that the whole area of mysticism is poorly covered at Wikipedia due to the contending streams of thought on the topic, I don't think this particular article, full of Walking's own synthesis of the available published material, is the way to solve the problem. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An essay, not an article giving the generally accepted facts on a topic as suitable for encyclopedia readers. Besides the very title presents an extremely non-neutral point of view when it contrasts "Christian" with "Evangelical." Borock (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Potential replacement article is included in the discussion section here. Article name Mysticism in Christianity(WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment The replacement article looks as much like original research as the original. Just cast in a different light. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does not look to me like original research (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Reply As the author, you may have too close an attachment to the subject to recognize that you are inserting your own synthesis of disparate ideas into the article. While, to you, the conclusions you draw are merely the logical result of the facts presented, to an uninformed reader, the fact that you are drawing conclusions at all constitutes the original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Which conclusion or conclusions are you spesifically referring to? I consider the replacement article to be neutral. (Even if you can point out one or two places where conclusions have been drawn that I didn't see, it can be fixed, as the overall article is neutral, my view). (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note to WikiDan: I can see that you are an experienced and honoured contributor at Wikipedia, and I respect your input. You and me may not share the same views or beliefs with regards to the topic at hand, but I honestly believe that my revised article is carefully worded particularly neutral with adequate reliable sources. The article on Christian mysticism was much less neutral. Before I gave my inputs on there (of which some still remains), it was written from the assumption that all mysticisms in Christianity is called Christian mysticism and that all Christian mysticism share the same theological views. These generalized theological views had then been described in the article as a given. It was about this, that I was most uncomfortable. I propose a deletion of the article Christian mysticism entirely, and rather an article "Mysticism in Christianity" which looks at the subject more broadly, allowing for various streams and theologies within Christianity related to mysticism to be discussed. This would allow Wikipedia as a whole to provide a more neutral overview of the subject. If the term "Christian mysticism" had indeed been "hijacked" by Gnostic streams within Christianity, it needs to be pointed out. But if "Christian mysticism" means any mysticisms within the Christian community, then that needs to allow for an overview of the various streams, and cannot be associated with a particular theology or worldview as a generalization. (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note to all the voters, please consider: The following are some prominent streams within Christianity:

The "mystery" interpretations of Scripture as well as the mysticism experiences and practices tollerated or promoted by these streams are not all the same. As Gnosticism had been considered a heresy by mainstream Christianity at large, the mysticism and mystical explanations associated with this stream is also rejected by the same. To say that there is no differences, is to already presuppose that Gnosticism and mainstream Christianity is reconcilable and is essentially the same thing. For that assumption I am confidant there is absolutely no reliable sources, and NOT for the argument that there are distinct differences as supposed by the article nominated for deletion. PS: The theology or scriptural interpretations described by the article Christian mysticism leans towards the theology of Gnostic Christianity and not of Pauline Christianity nor Evangelical Christianity. And to imply that there are no mysticism associated with the other expressions of Christianity is another unreasonable and unsourced assumption. (see also Gnosticism and the New Testament) (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. As I read the article, it was clear to me that I was reading a piece of persuasive writing which uses sources to support the author's conclusion, which is a desire to make a distinction between her own religious tradition and other Christian traditions. There's certainly room for that sort of essay, but it should be published in an evangelical journal; it's outside the scope of an encyclopedia. This looks like synthesis to me, not simply reporting the facts but using them to support a thesis- that mysticism as practiced by many Christians isn't 'real' Christianity.' Notice that none of the sources seem to actually use the phrase 'evangelical mysticism,' and a google search on the phrase brings up a few blogs but no reliable sources. I'm not at all convinced that 'evangelical mysticism' exists as a notable school of thought, and I think that the recent article Evangelical mysticism should probably be added to this AfD as more of the same: lots of sources that aren't actually about something called 'evangelical mysticism,' used in synthesis to try to create the impression that 'evangelical mysticism' is a subject anyone is writing about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: okay, one of the sources uses the phrase 'evangelical mysticism,' but since it was written before the evangelical movement, it can hardly mean what the article thinks it means. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[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.