- 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. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Scientific studies performed on private revelations and visionaries
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Scientific studies performed on private revelations and visionaries ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm... not even entirely sure where to start with this...
This isn't really an article about "scientific studies performed on private revelations and visionaries". It's just a list of apologetics, rumors and myths about Catholic folk tales.
According to a Catholic website, a guy saw purple, closed his eyes, and still saw purple. Also he had a PhD so that "makes it scientific" somehow, and I'm not even really sure what the relevance is here in the first place...but purple...and science.
According to "some Catholic website" we've figured out what Jesus's blood type is from a piece of human flesh that never decays. I'm not sure how that didn't make it into Nature as one of the most stunning scientific discoveries of the modern age, almost certain to garner a Nobel Prize, but it didn't, darn the luck, and we have to rely on "some website".
According to "some website" a lady didn't get burned by a candle. But then she did. But the guy was a doctor apparently...so... ...science.
I mean, if we want to write List of apologetics, rumors and myths about Catholic folk tales then that's fine I guess, but we should at least be clear about the scope, rather than trying to act like this is somehow related to science. GMG talk 15:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- That already exists, sort of, at Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church#Saint_and_feast_day_hagiography. This site would not fit so well into that page, though, because all of the studies listed are confirming rather than critical.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 18:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Textbook WP:SYNTH. jps ( talk) 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete it is a stretch to claim that any of these examples qualify as a scientific study. There is no indication that and of them have received significant coverage in mainstream sources. -- mikeu talk 16:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Not what the title claims it to be, and not well-written or well-sourced enough to be worth salvaging. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Devoutly inspired WP:OR. The given sources are not reliable for reporting these things as scientific studies. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and give an award to GMG for writing up a nomination that has made me laugh more than all the April Fool jokes I've seen so far today. Mccapra ( talk) 17:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per reasons already given. Agricolae ( talk) 17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Merge This should trimmed and made into a subcategory under Parapsychology#Research-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 18:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - As per GMG. Pseudo-scientific and non-encyclopedic. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete even though the blood of the Miracle of Luciano is blood type AB and Our Lady of Guadalupe has been tested to establish that no varnish was used. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:00, 8 April 2019 (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.