Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Jesus theft

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Jesus theft

edit
Baby Jesus theft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

US-centric, non-notable type of theft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiao (talk • contribs) 2010-12-16 02:37:02

  • Strong Keep. Being US-centric isn't at all a reason to delete, any more than being Philippines-centric would be a reason to delete My Way murders. Also, this is a notable type of theft that has even been covered in popular culture, as the article mentions. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I thought this was a hoax but sources confirm the notability of this article. If the news finds this notable- it is notable. I think it would be wrong to question notability on personal opinions, rather than quality and quantity of sources. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Delete per Tarc below, the sources linking these individual thefts as a phenomenon are not sufficient in my view (see ABC article). Note that I can not access the guardian reference, perhaps this would link the phenomenon. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:SYNTHESIS. Individual thefts are being noted in the article, there are no sources asserting that the overall theft of these types of statues/figures is itself notable. There is a difference between the two. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Tarc 's argument. Such thefts, individually make the local news, but collectively there is nothing of significance to say. They are unrelated, non-notable crimes (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N/CA).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a Google Search on theft of baby Jesus statues results in over 33,000 hits, topic is notable. Articles such as describe it as this where GPS, from one firm alone, is used by 30 plus communities denotes that this is wide spread and not just single notable events.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because a newspaper observes that there's be a rash of a certain type of petty crime recently, doesn't make it notable. EEng (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Synthesis, as noted above.Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a widespread crime, and it is not synthesis when news articles link the thefts as a trend, such as this article which discusses 100 such thefts [1] and this one which discusses 14 thefts[2] as possible attacks on the religious beliefs of the owners. This article says it is "a trend that is prevalent across the nation" (the US) but it is a worldwide phenomenon, as shown by press reports from European countries. This article also discusses a series of such thefts as trying to remove God from Christmas. Here is another article discussing it as a phenomenon rather than a simple theft. Here is yet another article describing it as a nationwide phenomenon (US). Edison (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closer inspection of your "news articles [which] link the thefts as a trend, such as this article which discusses 100 such thefts" reveals, Fredericksburg isn’t the only place experiencing such crime, according to a scan of Google News. The search engine turns up more than 100 recent reports of disappearing nativity figurines. Hardly a discussion -- more like a stringer straining to meet his 200 word minimum for tomorrow's edition. EEng (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yet those articles demolish the complaint that the article is a "synthesis" of individual crime reports that news publications have not joined together as a trend. I cited several such articles which I quickly found by scanning the multitude of related press reports. The trend of stealing the Jesus statue from the manger has multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, satisfying notability. Your speculation that a "stringer" rather than a qualified reporter wrote it, and that that he was "straining to meet a 200 word minimum" is not a meaningful argument against notability, unless you can cite a reliable source to back up your claim. Otherwise your complaint falls under the "unsupported statements" which the guidelines at the top of the edit box discourage. The reporter noted the hundred such crimes, and certainly could not be expected to discuss each one at great length. And that only refers to one of several articles noting it as a trend. Edison (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whatever one may think about whether this phenomenon is real or not, I have to agree with Edison that there are sufficient reliable sources (most notably the articles from The Guardian (2009)[3] and from the Washington Post (2004)--sourced here from the Seattle Times[4]) that treat it as such. The article needs to be carefully monitored for POV purposes, but the subject does seem to be notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck out the "stringer" conjecture, and apologize to the Bismarck, South Dakota, Freelance-Star journalist. I don't expect a discussion of each of the "100 such crimes" (obviously just an eyeball-estimate) "at great length"; I do expect , if there's going to be an article on this allegedly new "phenomenon," that it will be based on someone's discussion of these crimes at any length at all. Oh wait! There is some discussion, as cited above (Washington Post):
Some see the rash of stolen Christ figures as indicative of hostility toward Christmas or Christianity. "There will always be some young people who are drinking who would smash a menorah or a Nativity scene, whatever is there," said [Religious Leader X]. "But this is happening so much this year, I can only see it as part of the trend of Christian-bashing and trying to stamp out Christmas..." But [Academic Y] thinks the thefts have more to do with economics. "It's a function of the commodification of this holiday..."
The problem is, that's the only serious discussion you've cited (and it's hardly in-depth) -- and that's not enough for an article here. Beyond that, we have a headline...
Thefts of baby Jesus figurines sweep US -- Over the past month, pranksters have nabbed dozens of the items in New York, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania
...and a shamelessly self-promotional press release...
For the fifth year in a row, BrickHouse Security is providing free GPS trackers to churches and communities across North America. This successful program is free to any qualified non-profit for the month of December.
After that, where will this article go? Other than additional he said-she said exchanges on whether or not there's a war on Christmas, what will be in this article other than a list of thefts? It's easy to use Google to come up with similar alleged culture-war crimewaves:
A nationwide pumpkin-theft epidemic evidencing a war on Halloween;
The national nightmare of July 4 flag theft evidencing a war on American independence by terrorist sleeper-cells; and of course
A jump in Easter-bunny thefts easily seen to be part of the ongoing War on Easter (including such stories as Police hop on theft report, recover stolen bunnies and Callous theft of pet rabbits devastates young owner in Seville).
I might note that there are 3 million Google hits on "theft of bunnies," 300,000 for "theft of flag july 4" and only 30,000 for "theft of baby jesus", so the need for an article on Easter crimes is ten times more urgent than that for one on anti-patriot crimes, which in turn is a problem of 10 times the magnitude of manger larceny.

Filler stories on everyday petty crime, absent serious discussion deeper than that of the Washington Post article, cannot be the basis of an article on Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Old Dragnet episodes, as outlined in the article, don't count as reliable sources.

re bizarre thefts: theft of snowman (994,000 hits and numerous news reports) is a classic complete with BBC report and an in depth coverage by Sky News. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is obviously snowballing. EEng (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC) (Another P.S.: As a not-trivial technical point, if these thefts really were "bizarre" then they might actually be an appropriate subject for an article -- assuming sources are available etc. But these aren't bizarre or even unusual.)[reply]
  • Note that in a Google search, if you list several words without any quotes, you overestimate the number of hits because any site with any of the words comes up. And you are getting websites, not news articles as in Google News Archive. So your posting is irrelevant and misleading. So the articles cited by Arxiloxos and by me, while better than the notability demonstration for half of the other articles on Wikipedia, are meaningless to you, since by your standards the subject is silly or trivial. Fine. We can agree to disagree. We are left with "the subject is silly" which sounds like "IDONTLIKEIT" or "OTHER STUFF LIKE THIS EXISTS WITHOUT AN ARTICLE" which is also an ineffective argument. We are discussing this one subject, not snowmen. The "synthesis" argument was the basis for a number of the Delete !votes early on, and that argument seems to be demolished. Edison (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's best to avoid humor with some people. Once again I've struck out portions of my reply (and Czar Brodie's too, for which I hope he will forgive me in view of the greater good) which seem to distract you from the main point, the gravamen of which, in an abundance of caution, I've placed in bold for your convenience. The Google counts have nothing to do with it. It's that there's excruciatingly little serious consideration of
(a) whether or not there is some new phenomenon or trend here; and
(b) what if anything is the significance of it.
While "original synthesis" and "original research" are forbidden on Wikipedia, so also are articles with no research and no synthesis at all -- it's just that you have to find an outside, reliable source that's done some research and synthesized something worth noting. That's absent in this case.

You (collectively) say there's a phenomenon of increased Jesus thefts. OK, point me to a source that seriously considers that question via sober numerical analysis. Can't find one? Is it possible that there just aren't any good statistics on this? Then, unfortunately, this subject will have to remain outside of Wikipedia, because it's outside the realm of the knowable.

EEng (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • EEng, I have no problem with (and enjoyed) the humor. To be clear, I am not saying there's hard evidence of an upswing in Baby Jesus thefts; in fact, it's possible that your and my personal skepticism about this may be similar. What I find, however, is a pattern of reports in reliable sources asserting that such a phenomenon exists (or is claimed to exist). Finding such sources, I see no basis to exclude the subject from Wikipedia. I do think you've raised valid concerns that this article could end up as a soapbox for the culture wars, but as with the article on Christmas controversy (f/k/a War on Christmas), I see that as a problem to be addressed by editorial monitoring, not AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case the title would need to be Perception of increase in theft of baby Jesus or some such. That being absurd, this material might be a subsection of the War on Xmas article.

    Meanwhile, we're well past the point where we should be comparing the available sources to applicable guideslines. At this point I'll outdent, and the bolding here is mine:

Let's start with WP:INDEPTH:

An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable....In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines...Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally.

One user's essay on the subject([5]) puts it very well:

Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact...News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria:
1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate.
2. The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way....

Can you point me to any of this with regard to our poor baby Jesuses? Or, if you prefer, can you explain why the criteria set forth above shouldn't apply? EEng (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be stuck on the notion that something must be "increasing" to be notable. That is not found anywhere in WP:N. The Earth is notable, even though its mass is not markedly increasing. Similarly, the present subject only needs the demonstrated significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. If the proportion of "Baby Jesus" figures stolen each year had been exactly the same every year since the first recorded Nativity scene, set up by St. Francis on December 24, 1223, that would not, in the slightest, provide a reason to delete this article. There is absolutely no requirement that anyone demonstrate that "X% more Baby Jesus figures are being stolen in 2010 than 20 years ago." That is quite irrelevant and does not merit mention in this discussion. Edison (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cited lack of serious quantification as just one of the many contrasts between the vague assertions in the cited news stories and the kind of analysis which is a prerequisite for an article. EEng (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you take Jesus' name in vain in your edit summary and comment suggests you don't read rules very well.--Milowent • talkblp-r 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darn. I told myself to stop using humor. But really -- lighten up, will you? EEng (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The essay cited (not even a guideline, let alone a policy) applies to current events, and in no way to a cultural theme going back more than 60 years. One from 1949 cited the Dragnet radio episode as a "famous story" about a boy taking the stolen Baby Jesus for a ride in his new wagon. Edison (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took pains to point out that it was an essay. As always, you've half-addressed one argument and ignored the rest. Since you make a point of it, WP:INDEPTH, which is indeed a Wikipedia guideline, is quite enough. Please point to the sources that, as specified, either
  • "[put] events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines" or
  • do more than "highlight either the old event or such types of events generally"
If you once again fail to reply to what I actually say, rather than a strawman, I won't bother to respond. You don't seem able to follow the discussion. EEng (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's really funny when someone demands that I acquiesce to their views, or I "just don't have a sense of humor." "Aw. Shucks, Ah wuz only funnin,'" variously expressed, is the defense of bullies the world over. I am dead serious in trying to edit this encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One can have fun even in the midst of serious business. As predicted you're responding to a meaningless exchange (with someone else) several paragraphs back, instead of my substantive points above. Your insistence that you're some kind of victim is duly noted. EEng (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All should desist from the personal attacks on anyone with opposing views (such as "I guess it's best to avoid humor with some people" and "You don't seem able to follow the discussion") and stick to discussion of policies, guidelines, and sources as they relate to the notability of the topic. As for WP:INDEPTH, see the significant and in-depth coverage in some articles cited above by Arxiloxo, including in the Guardian, and the Seattle Times. Edison (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have at last responded to my challenge to point to (as called for in the notability guidelines) "in-depth coverage" which puts this topic "into context." You have pointed to two articles.

I have to ask you: Really? This is really the "in-depth coverage" documenting (what you call) "a cultural theme going back more than 60 years"? A 900-word article from 2004,[7] and a 400-word article in 2009,[8] constitute treatment "such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents..."? Really? EEng (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This subject seems pretty good compared to the average Wikipedia article. Try the "Random article search" for 20 articles and let up know how many have a 60 Minutes episode, a book from a university press or a Time article devoted to it among the references. The present topic stands up very well in notability by comparison to the rest of the content of the encyclopedia. It meets the standard of "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources." Edison (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting myself from above: "As always, you've half-addressed one argument and ignored the rest." It's inappropriate to keep quoting WP:GNG while ignoring the guidelines for specific classes of topics, in this case WP:EVENTS (and within that, specifically, WP:INDEPTH). Please also review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. At this point I'll wait for the closing admin to make what he or she will of what's been presented so far. Goodbye. EEng (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article as nominated had some synthesis, but the potential here is for a decent little article. Many good sources, as noted above, have been found, and can easily, with a little copyediting, be added and fixed. Comparing this article to Featured articles smacks of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What??? No one said anything about Wikipedia Featured Articles, if that's what you mean. Please re-read my post, and the notability guidelines it cites, and reconsider your comment. EEng (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Here's the entirety of the ABC article, other than the narration of a particular family's victimization:
Local law enforcement officials around the country say thefts from holiday displays are an unfortunate but familiar occurrence this time of year, and, unfortunately, the items are difficult to recover. "It's not uncommon to have vandalism to displays during the holiday season," said Fort Collins Police Department spokeswoman Rita Davis. "And many people don't report it when Rudolph gets taken from the front yard." ....Morris said most thefts from nativity scenes are committed by people who either have malicious intent toward the particular church or are teenage pranksters out for a thrill.
("Morris," by the way, is owner of a security company which uses free loans of GPS equipment for religious displays as a promotional gimmick. I guess that gives him standing to comment on the psychological motives of thieves.) Now compare the above to WP:EVENTS:
Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. EEng (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
". . .since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally" This article can indeed be used to prove notability of the trend as it is not giving notability to the specific theft, but to the type of event generally. --Banana (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...which makes it... the type of article... which editors... "should not rely on"... to afford notability. What could be clearer? I'm beginning to think I'm the victim of some elaborate joke, whereing people interpret guidelines backwards just to see how I'll react. EEng (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your confusion comes from that you are taking a guideline written for a specific type of article (articles about events) and applying it to a topic it was never intended to cover (a sociological trend in crime). The part of WP:EVENT that you quoted was stating that articles such as the abc article do not give notability to each individual event, but only to the overall phenomenon. --Banana (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? You're quite right. I was blind to the word "new" in affort notability to the new event. That still leaves us with the first part of the WP:EVENTS, which calls for in-depth coverage. But you seem to be saying now that WP:EVENTS doesn't apply; I disagree, since the only coverage anyone has pointed to is news coverage. What alternative guideline would apply, and what evidence is there that the topic conforms to that guideline? EEng (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced about 30 articles (about various African politicians) with only news articles. Does WP:EVENT apply to those articles as well? --Banana (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as SYNTHESIS and NOTNEWS. Routine coverage of a criminal act. Not actually a Baby Jesus theft, which would be a kidnapping, but a Baby Jesus figurine theft, and not that generally, but specifically am outdoor Christmas Nativity scene Baby Jesus figurine theft, an act that isn't recognized as a unique criminal act of theft anywhere that I'm aware of. Some of the articles note other nativity scene figures are stolen as well, or Christmas trees, or menorahs, or atheist holiday displays, or whatever. Not really any different than crucifix thefts, of which many are reported, or business mascot thefts, of which many are reported. *Any* property of sentimental, aesthetic or monetary value is a target for theft, especially if it's outdoors and unguarded, something which should be obvious. The popular culture "reference" in Dragnet is synthesis, not really a theft but investigated as one, not based on a real crime, and not referenced in any article about a real crime. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is plenty of reliable source material for the article, which really isn't the question. In that regard, the topic is valid as noted in this news article:
  • Mucha, Peter (December 27, 2008). "Baby Jesus thefts seem to be epidemic". Kansas City Star. p. A9.
  • "GPS technology protecting Baby Jesus". Daily Record. December 3, 2010.
  • Dwyer, Devin (2010-12-13). "Nativity Scene Thefts Holiday Tradition, Police Say". ABC News.
In addition, there are plenty of more sources supporting the premise that "Baby Jesus theft is the theft of plastic or ceramic figurines of the infant Jesus from outdoor public and private nativity displays during the Christmas season. The prevalence of such thefts has caused the owners of outdoor manger scenes to protect their property with GPS devices, surveillance cameras, or by other means.": BABY JESUS STOLEN FOR 2 YEARS IN A ROW (December 28, 1995), CRIMES AGAINST CHRISTMAS THIEVES TAKING BABY JESUS FIGURES FROM LAWNS (December 29, 1996), Anarchists in Italy kidnap baby Jesus from nativity scene (12/29/98), BABY JESUS THEFT HINTS AT BIGGER HOLIDAY CRIME (12/7/99), THIEVES TAKE MORE THAN JUST BABY JESUS: EMPTY FEELING ENGULFS NEIGHBORHOOD (12/24/99), BABY JESUS STOLEN OUT OF CRECHE BARRINGTON DISPLAY HIT AGAIN BY THEFT (12/27/00), IT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN EASY FOR BABY JESUS AROUND HERE (12/14/03), Baby Jesus taken from nativity scene -- again (1/7/04), Aussie brewery offers cases of beer as reward for stolen baby Jesus' return (11/17/04), Nativity scene thefts baffling Frustrated Lansdale officials will try to figure out how to stop thieves who are stealing the baby Jesus figurine. (2/7/05) California maintenance worker finds 13 stolen baby Jesus figurines (12/30/05), Stolen away from their mangers 27 baby Jesus statues, taken from crèches, found in car (1/3/06), Christmas: Odd crimes reported Strange crimes abound during the holidays From plastic baby Jesuses to marijuana stashed in card, police blotters are full during holiday season. (12/25/06), First 2 Baby Jesus thefts reported (11/29/07). Theft of Baby Jesus figurines harbinger of holiday. quote="The theft of Baby Jesus figurines from outdoor holiday creches is becoming as much a part of the holiday season as lighted trees and shopping sprees" (11/29/07) GPS, hidden cameras watching over Baby Jesus (12/10/08) Robbing the cradle In response to increasing thefts, some churches in the U.S. have more than angels watching over their ceramic baby Jesuses UK Globe and Mail (12/11/08) Churches can track baby Jesus statutes (12/14/08) Security from above: Baby Jesuses watched over by GPS devices (12/21/08) Christmas spirit? Baby Jesus stolen in Swedish bible belt (12/23/08) Reports appear around the U.S. of thefts of baby Jesus from nativity scenes, December 27, 2008, GPS technology protecting Baby Jesus (12/3/10). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please point, among all that (most of which has been cited already in this discussiom), to the in-depth coverage called for by WP:INDEPTH. Or, if you believe some other guideline applies, what guideline would that be, and how is it satisfied? EEng (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, EEng, responding to every single keep vote isn't helping you. You seem to have a different opinion for what constitutes in-depth coverage of something. I've seen countless AfDs end in keep with far less coverage than this. Based on your earlier cussing, I think you may have had your personal baby jesus stolen from your heart.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The headlines above are the ones relevant to supporting the premise that this topic is covered by reliable sources and is a commonplace phenomenon connected through (i) Christmas season, (ii) the Baby Jesus, (iii) common rections of outrage, (iv)counter measures via such as GPS, and (v) relatively harsh punishment for those caught. I also threw in some to show that this is more of a global happening rather than merely U.S. based. As far as quantity of material, in news headlines alone, I found over 400 articles having "Baby Jesus" in them related to theft, stolen, etc. Within those alone, there is more than enought reliable source material to support a stand alone article on the topic. In addition to these, Google books, Google scholar, relevant news that does not have "Baby Jesus" in the title, etc are additional sources from which to mine information for the article. Clearly this meets WP:GNG. In regards to Wikipedia:Notability (events), that guideline is limited to current and past real events, as well as breaking news. Since Baby Jesus thef is a topic, WP:INDEPTH doesn't apply. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:08, 23 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baby_Jesus_theft&oldid=1253361103"