Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papal oath (traditionalist Catholic)

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. Sandstein 14:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papal oath (traditionalist Catholic)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No source talks about the subject directly apart from one primary traditionalist Catholic source clearly mentionned (The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church, by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas A. Woods, pages 161-162) in which the hypothetical oath is presented. Sources are mostly primary sources, a few are secondary, but none apart from Ferrara and Woods mention the subject of the article, not even indirectly, i.e. a legend or story of a papal oath during the coronation of each pope. This article reads more like a blog post. The previous deletion proposal is very difficult to follow, and it seems the subject in this 2007 proposal was less the deletion, and more a page move. Veverve (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, we had a conversation about this, and I decided that the article is purely based on WP:OR because specifically we have no only one source about any "Traditionalist claim" so there are no bones, and it all falls apart. I feel this is someone's personal hobby horse, and hopefully has abandoned the idea long since. Elizium23 (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: there is one traditionalist source dealing with the subject directly; I have edited the nomination accordingly. Veverve (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I revise my comment, but the gist still holds: doesn't meet WP:GNG for topic. No article possible. Elizium23 (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article seems to ramble away from its topic, with four footnotes being used to discuss the condemnation of Pope Honorius I, who is not mentioned by name in the oath. Nothing in the article clearly indicates when and where the legend of the papal oath originated, and why the originators did not consult the written sources that describe the coronation ceremony, or for that matter the recordings of the last three papal coronations. (Pope Pius XII's coronation was broadcast on radio, as were the coronations of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, and the latter two were also filmed for television broadcast.) I wonder if the oath in its "current" form, and the legend associated therewith, may have been created in the 1960s or later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to EWTN, the "Papal Oath" was "highly unlikely.. ever used at all in papal coronations and certainly not from the sixth to the 20th centuries given that the earliest recorded papal coronation ceremony is that of Pope Celestine II in 1143". [1] Doesn't seem to be significant, if even an accurate procedure of the Church. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep.This article is confusing and not well written but it is attempting to set out the main authoritative points of view about a fringe theory. People will come across this alleged oath online and turn to Wikipedia to find out about it. This article leads them through the reasons why the alleged oath is not, if it existed at all, what it is made out to be in some contemporary sites. It also describes other oaths that popes actually were required to take. It might be bette4 with a title like “Papal oath controversy” or something. Mccapra (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I’ll just add that if you Google “papal oath” you can see that there is in fact a claim by some traditional Catholics that the oath existed in the form described in the article, and was abandoned by modernists. Mccapra (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC) ok I’m giving up in this one now based on the arguments others have made. Mccapra (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: You wrote: "People will come across this alleged oath online and turn to Wikipedia to find out about it. This article leads them through the reasons why the alleged oath is not, if it existed at all, what it is made out to be in some contemporary sites." However, the whole article is OR of primary sources, or of secondary sources which never talk about the alledged oath; how, then, do we know if this oath existed or not, since no secondary sources deal with the subject of the article? People will turn to WP and will find the equivalent of a blog post, not a reliable article. Veverve (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn’t that a problem with most fringe theories? There’s something at the core which isn’t well founded. I see what you mean though. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Talking about a fringe theory, and a fortriori proving said theory is not well founded, is only possible if we have reliable secondary sources about said theory. Veverve (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion leaning towards delete at this stage per policy-based arguments, but giving this another 7 days to nut it out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a Fringe Theory and not relevant to the modern papacy, nor is it relevant to current ecclesiology. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a weird melange of an article but ultimately it is mostly an WP:OR attempt to debunk something. There is no evidence in the article that this is a notable fringe theory. The supposed text cited is passed around like many other conspiracy theories and other fringe theories on the internet, but I see only the one source that there has been any attention paid to it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 26 January 2021 (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.