Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaculate Conception Of Saint Joseph

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. postdlf (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Conception of Saint Joseph

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

This article is eligible for deletion on the grounds of verifiability, original research, and fringe. There are no reliable sources. Suarez, Liguori, de Bunis, and Lapide are claimed to support a position that cannot be substantiated. Most of the arguments in favor of the proposition are poorly reasoned Original Research. This entire article appears to be based upon a book by J. Ivan Prcela, an Ohio gentleman who left the seminary over 70 yrs ago, and whose only other work is a book about Croatia during WWII.

talk) 14:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
t • c » 15:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This AfD was improperly formatted originally, and was blanked by the nominator with the comment 'can't seem to list this'. Snotbot then came along and, apprently, listed a blank AfD. Given the nature of the blanking/withdraw due to inability to properly list the AfD, which has been rectified, I am restoring and relisting this; if the nominator desires a complete withdraw, I have no objections. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be 3 published sources which support this theory, concept, whatever. What's needed is some sources that dispute it and/or explain that it is a minority position within the Catholic faith. Borock (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly referenced fringe religious beliefs held by only a handful of people do not require encyclopedia articles and do not require some artificial "balance" of pro and con writers. Stating some bit of particular nonsense, then stating that "it is a minority position within the Catholic Church" violates
WP:DUEWEIGHT. Edison (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Thompson's book (published 1891) can be read on-line, and is readily searched for the word "immaculate". In every case it can be immediately seen that it is used to refer to mary, except for a couple of passages where it seems to refer to the doctrine of her perpetual virginity. In reference to a nearly five hundred page book I would demand specific citations, but at present I tentatively conclude that Healy did not propose any such notion. I also note that he has an article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, and it's hard to imagine that if he taught such a thing, they would fail to mention it. This shows all the signs of being
original theology. Seyasirt (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fringe position with no apparent mainstream coverage
talk) 16:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a religious website--mediator_ram - talk2me 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to torpedo someone voting the same way as me, but that rationale doesn't constitute a valid policy and guideline based argument,

talk) 01:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep -- Unless this is all lies, it would seem that three theologians at different periods have propounded a view. It is not my view, but the fact that they did so is worthy of note. I suspect that this is a FRINGE position among Catholics, but not so ridiculous as to treat it like a HOAX. Whether the precise title is right is a differnet question. The article is certainly badly presneted in that it lacks a lead. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is untrue that those named in the article made the statements claimed for them, at least as interpreted here, and surely extraordinary claims require at least ordinary evidence. All I could readily check were the cited works, which do not support claims that anyone believed such a theory. Also, this article is phrased as a theological argument, not as a historical account. So yes, I think it is probably "all lies" in that I think it is the author's theory and not that of the names dropped in the article. Seyasirt (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- Please, who are these three mentioned "published sources"/theologians?
talk) 21:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — The three authors cited in the lead held no such belief, and did not "teach" this false doctrine as the editor who created the article claimed. Bede735 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The entire article reads like original research. Based on the research of the comments above, much of the article seems to be unfounded on sound sources. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 06:03, 20 August 2013 (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.