Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion and philosophy/Closed

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 04:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf's contribution to the battle of Badr

Topic is not notable on its own. Almost all of the article copied word-for-word from ... somewhere. Dr Gangrene 14:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Got it. Copyvio. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Bukhari is not copyvio. Its standard Muslim tradition to included the over 1000 years old collection in historical articles. --Striver 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, who's the ignorant one now, then? Oh right, me. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Probably not copyvio but that may also depend on the copyright status of the translation used, so if a source was cited it would be helpful.Palmiro 14:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Battle of Badr (see below). -- BD2412 ^talk 18:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Individual tactical detail about somebody in a battle. Doesn't appear notable. — RJH 20:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:00
• interwiki to wikisource or delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for the work of historians. If there is relevant information that can be merged concisely to Battle of Badr or an article on Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf then merge. Palmiro 16:14, 16 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 04:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abu Jahl's contribution to the battle of Badr

Article topic not notable on its own. Large part of the text seems to be copied from somewhere. Dr Gangrene 15:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Battle of Badr (see below). -- BD2412 ^talk 18:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Two novices lop off the head of an opponent during battle. Not notable. — RJH 20:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:00
• interwiki to wikisource or merge to Battle of Badr. Palmiro 16:15, 16 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 04:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muawwaz ibn Amr contribution to the battle of Badr, Muaaz ibn Amr contribution to the battle of Badr, Umayah ibn Khalaf's contribution to the battle of Badr, Walid ibn Utba's contribution to the battle of Badr, Obaidah ibn al-Harith's contribution to the battle of Badr, Ali ibn Abu Talib's contribution to the battle of Badr, Bilal ibn Ribah's contribution to the battle of Badr

Article topic is not notable on its own. Dr Gangrene 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note - combined nearly identical VfD's for efficiency. Also, merge all with Battle of Badr. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This also counts as a delete vote for all the other "Battle of Badr" topics below. Sandstein 16:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note - above vote was moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ali ibn Abu Talib's contribution to the battle of Badr when VfD's were combined, but the sentiment obviously applies to all of them. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• This looks crufty. No independent encyclopedic value. Merge all with Battle of Badr. Martg76 19:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ah just delete them all. Dare I say islam-o-cruft? — RJH 20:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and/or merge if there is any useful content. Erwin Walsh
• Merge all into the page on the battle itself. Why on earth is all this necessary?—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:37:11, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful, then redirect. --Celestianpower ^hab 21:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. A waste of space. Osomec 22:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:02
• Merge per BD2412. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are 3 more articles not listed above but very similar:
    • Wahb ibn Umayr's contribution to the battle of Badr
    • Safwan ibn Umayah's contribution to the battle of Badr
    • Abu Sufyan ibn Harb's contribution to the battle of Badr -- Dr Gangrene 16:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• merge all containing useful information into articles on personalities or battle of Badr. Otherwise delete. Palmiro 16:17, 16 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 21:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Samara

questionable notability- 2,270 hits on google, only half of the first ten related to this particular Tony Samara. vanity page- only edits by 82.154.202.158/82.154.136.200/Tsamara, presumed to be the same user, who is affiliated with the samara foundation and has contributed almost solely linkspam related to Tony Samara. Heah (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The behaviour of the editor in question is dubious as pointed out by the nominator and does smell of vanity. However, if he's done the stuff that his website [7] says he has, then he might just get above the notability bar. Maybe. -Splash 01:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Okay, he's journeyed through the jungles of South America to study under shamans. But what has he done to impact the world that makes him worthy of an encyclopedic entry? According to his website (but not the article) he gives lectures, but so do tens of thousands of other non-notable people. If Mr. Samara is so noteworthy, let's see a reference to an article or book written about him by a notable third party (the New York Times, the Village Voice, etc). If something like that materializes, I'll gladly change my vote, otherwise this article seems little more than an advert for the Samara Foundation. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article Wikipedia cannot refer only to American references if it is to be a world encyclopedia. Here is a press article from the reference newspaper in Portugal: DNA - Diário de Notícias on Tony Samara see also Diário de Notícias' main page - Various articles have been written about him in Visão magazine (Portugal's equivalent of Time magazine). He also appeared recently on Croatian television (Good Morning Croatia). There are many articles on people in Wikipedia that don't have any impact whatsoever on the world such as fashion models that appeared twice on a magazine cover. What is written about Tony Samara is correct and his invaluable work is being documented in books that are to be released by third parties at the end of this year. Wikipedia is for free information, we can criticize everything and find faults in everything but what makes it special is that it has cutting edge information of things that are hard to find elsewhere and not just news that is reported in The New York Times in the U.S. User:Tsamara

A search for "Tony Samara" on Diario de Noticias' website yields zero hits. That leaves you only the subject's own website which, as R. fiend already pointed out, cannot be taken as a neutral, objective information source for the subject. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is an article in Visão where you can find out about Tony Samara's work (in portuguese) - Visão article about fasting. The Diário de Notícias article was published in a special supplement that doesn't have an online version, they do have it in their archives if you wish to call or write them. I'll look up for more since Tony's work is primarily - but not only - focused in Portugal, Slovenia and Croatia. User:Tsamara

I would breifly like to point out that a google search for "tony samara" will bring up hits from every language and corner of the world, not just in english, from the united states.--Heah (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. One's own website is not a good source for NPOV information on a subject. -R. fiend 15:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If this doesn't qualify as vanity, what on earth does? This is a badly written promo piece that should be tossed forthwith. Also, the link Visão article about fasting contains a hardly notable reference. Dottore So 22:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Seems to be vanity. Definitely not NPOV. At the very least, needs some credible references other than the link to Samara's own website. If the article could be improved to be NPOV and to have some third-party references, I would vote to keep. Colin M. 22:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Weak Keep. I still think this page is not NPOV, and is therefore in need of fixing (particularly, it needs more references to third-party sites), but the subject is at least marginally notable and the fact that the article needs fix-up doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted forthright. Colin M. 00:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the article This is a significant humanitarian organization here in Europe, which happpens to be driven by Tony Samara. His website was written objectively by someone who observed his work over an extensive period, therefore 'self promotion' and 'vanity' are not relevant here. If people are lauded greatly by those who come into contact with them, there is a reason why, and if the article is allowed to remain where it is, more people will have an opportunity to find out what that reason is.LifeisRound.com

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pastafarians

• Keep. To all of you unbelievers, I hope that you may someday be touched by his noodley appendage
• Looks like some kind of joke. AlbertR 21:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy'd? Sounds like kingdomofloathing cruft to me... -Hmib 01:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; joke, not a joke, whatever. Just delete it. Paul 05:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. -- Visviva 09:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• ReDirect and Merge. "pastafarian" already redirects to Flying Spaghetti Monster --KillerChihuahua 13:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • also would like to add to AlbertR, how do you vote? Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, BJAODN, or other? and to the anonymous Keep vote above (To all of you unbelievers...) please remember to sign your vote (history shows you to be Pastafarian, which makes me think perhaps this is a vanity vote.)--KillerChihuahua 13:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep! This is an internet cult!

• Merge into Flying Spaghetti Monster (which should obviously be cleaned up and kept). This is obvious. Doops | talk 03:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above Amren ^(talk) 03:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Flying Spaghetti Monster. This article is poorly written and does not contribute anything new.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fr._Adsum_Iterum

Non-notable Grayum 12:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I will tag for sources and improvement. Its a badly-written bio, and may well be autobio, but the Book of the Glyph is available for sale on Amazon.com, and that seems to qualify under WP:BIO. Robert A West 15:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• • From WP:BIO: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000. Has the book sold 5000 copies? The book has an amazon ranking of 1,033,998. Its publisher, Xlibris Corporation (http://www2.xlibris.com/) is a vanity press. Delete. Zoe 21:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn author from a vanity press. --Etacar11 23:43, 11 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rogé Abergel

A pastor. 17 Google hits. lots of issues | leave me a message 11:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — fails to establish notability. — RJH 17:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nominator. --Tim Pope 17:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. feydey 22:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Etacar11 23:26, 11 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of prominent visionaries

POV anyone? I just can't wait until someone adds L. Ron Hubbard, Lyndon LaRouche and even David Icke to the list. David | Talk 10:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• And Jimbo Wales (he said sycophantically) - otherwise delete --Doc (?) 11:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with a vengence. This topic is hopelessly POV and will probably start a few POV wars. (How can you include/not include Einstein, Ghandi, Muhammed, etc.) ManoaChild 11:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Arthur C Clarke? Why did he live in Sri lanka?--Porturology 12:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• I have a prominent vision to Delete. --Several Times 14:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Manoa Child.--Frag 14:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Though I must agree that Jimbo Wales deserves a spot on the list. ral315 16:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• delete the criteria for listing is too subjective. --Tim Pope 17:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 17:29:20, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
• Delete, but at least it let me find Finn McCleave and Jason Po-Tiger. Anything that helps clean crap out of Wikipedia has served some purpose.--Scimitar ^parley 17:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless I'm added to the list. I like how there weren't any "prominent visionaries" for ten centuries. JDoorjam 20:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, only slightly better than having List of people suffering of diarrhea. Pavel Vozenilek 02:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Visionary" is severely not objectively quantifiable, so much so that we probably couldn't even get a good list out of "People who are widely considered visionaries" or the like. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Don't forget Marc Emery... / Peter ^Isotalo 01:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Edit war bait and POV galore, all supporters of just about any kind of group, no matter how small, would try to include their founders - Skysmith 10:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is the sort of thing that should be a category if anything at all, unmaintainable as an article.--Gorgonzilla 18:01, 18 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Not deleted; no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Catholic Actresses and Actors

No more notable than List of Catholic Criminals, which is already up for VfD. The religion of an actor is not important unless they make it so, such as Mel Gibson. Zoe 05:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is just a rehash of the debate just finished. We had a VfD for the comprehensive list of Catholics: Votes for deletion/List of Roman Catholics. The article was kept, but many wanted to break it up into smaller articles. This article was a section of List of Roman Catholics, and was recently split off into a separate article, as were many other sections. If it gets deleted it will just be returned as a section of the original article. We might as well keep the smaller lists, but in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter, the information will end up somewhere. We are just going over the same tired old ground here. NoSeptember 06:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I'm beginning to feel exhausted: haven't we been thru with the same stuff already ? Mir Harven 16:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep I don't understand--I thought this was settled with the division and reorganization of the site. Why are we debating deletion again?? User:Rms125a@hotmail.com
• Delete. This is not just some small nationality or a minority somewhere, but the majority religion of the Americas and large parts of Europe, as well as a prominent minority in many other countries in the world. Unless you want to probe into every individual's faith, this would include almost every actor and actress from France, Italy, Spain, Poland, (Republic of) Ireland, large parts of Germany etc. Unmaintainable and ridiculous. Tupsharru 13:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh Lord, something of this scope is completely unmaintainable and pretty much pointless. If there was some sort of correlation between acting and Catholicism I could support this list. --NormanEinstein 15:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Slightly more NPOV than List of Catholic Criminals, but still a list that is non-encyclopedic and would take forever to compile all actors and actresses who are Catholic (that list is big, but by no means is it complete, I'm sure.) ral315 16:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even close to completion, it would be impossible, there are alot of Catholics, and alot of actors and actresses. In countries like France and Italy, almost everyone is Catholic, so in theory over 90 percent of their actors and actresses should be on this list, 25 percent of American actors and actresses, and many from the many other largely Catholic places in the world. It might be different if Catholisism was a small unpopular religion; it isn't. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 16:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• delete being Catholic is not unusual enough to warrant a list. --Tim Pope 17:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — How does this differ from the following: List of Jewish actors and actresses, List of Indian movie actresses, List of Quebec actors and actresses, List of female theater actresses, List of female movie actors, List of Catholic American Actors, List of actors who have played lesbians, bisexuals and gay men, &c. &c. &c. ? — RJH 17:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We may need to set some guidelines on the validity of lists of people existing on Wikipedia, because it appears that some just don't like them, period. In addition to all the actor-related lists you listed, there are dozens of Catholic lists, Jewish lists, Muslim lists, and on and on. Should we VfD each in turn? It seems to be the trend. NoSeptember 17:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I have wanted to say, “delete” for the past few days, but I have changed my mind. I wanted to see the value of such a list. What value could it have?
  • VALUE: Let's say you are an 11-year-old school child and wanted to write a paper for class of prominent Catholic entertainers, or are a reporter for the Bumpkintown News and wanted to write an article about prominent Jewish physicists. You might want to include a list, and/or work off of one to create your assignment.
  • MORE VALUE: I would like to see the list have even more value by placing more information into the list. Instead of just a list of names, it would be move valuable if it contained useful information. I would like to see notes added in parentheses after a name entry: “(practicing)”; “(born into Catholic family)”; “(served as alter boy)”; “(converted at age 69)”; “(non-practicing)”; etc.
• As for the list becoming long: that is for the people who contribute to it regularly to worry about. They can start filtering by prominence later, as they see fit. You don’t need every Sean, Carlos, and Mario on the list, if the list gets to big, you can make it prominent actors.

WikiDon 17:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete we can have infinite lists of 'people who are in category X, who are also in category Y' (e.g. 'List of blue-eyes sportsmen). Unless the two categories are likely to impinge on each other (e.g. 'Catholic philosophers', 'Afro-American politicians') or we are dealing with a minority cross-sections, which have otherwise become notable in debates (e.g. 'List of American actors who were professing communists'), I would always say delete --Doc (?) 17:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete To Doc's point, I think we can legitimately establish that a list identifying some remarkable condition (i.e. being from Quebec) warrants a presence, if only to satisfy the lust of listmongers. In this case, however, Catholic seems too universal a category to be of much interest or value. Also, on a different note, isn't 'actor' now gender neutral? Dottore So 18:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, actors, criminals etc are not maintainable and not very relevant. List of archbishops may be. Pavel Vozenilek 02:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. It's kinda bizarre one has to resort to quoting himself, but, as Ned Kelly had said: "Such is life.". So:
• 1.Having read the "delete answers", I've come to a unanimous (hehheh..) conclusion: the list must be kept. Arguments for deletion go something like this: yeah, and List of Muslims, List of Jews, List of Buddhists, .., too.. It won't happen. These list will not be deleted. So- either all or not a single one. Since the former option is out of question- the RCC list must stay (albet radically modified in not a few features). Since I was the one who has been, initially, the most suspicious about the RCC list, I can ask with some authority: why is this list here at all ? Not accompanied by other fellow lists ? Now, the whole affair begins to smack of something...undesirable. Mir Harven 08:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• 2.See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_people_by_belief, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Christians, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Jews. There are more than 30 denomination-based lists. Most of them have been hotly debated over before & there is no chance wikipedians galore who have put their efforts into making them would even contemplate removing them. Get real. Mir Harven 08:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is what we have categories for. Proto t c 09:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A useful list with a lot of editers who keep it up to date. Doohickey 16:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per my arguments in Votes for deletion/List of Catholic Criminals. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 17:22, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think it's useful. --Chris 18:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, go ahead and delete it, because it's only notably list-worthy when criminals, actors, and what-have-you are not of the One True Faith </sarcasm—or is it?>. → (AllanBz ✎) 03:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why would anyone want to read this...? Unmanagable, pointless and potentially endless. Hopefully the other similar lists will get deleted sooner or later... / Peter ^Isotalo 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it could be organized better and if it get unamanageable then ther can always be subpages... like in philosopher lists. gren グレン 12:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. it was said that Catholics are a majority in the West, nevertheless it's wise to keep the list in order not to get confused, for there are always exceptions. User:Cockney
• Comment - List could be relevant if it would include actors and actresses whose career is closely linked to their catholicism, that is, who have played prominent roles in movies or plays with strongly catholic themes or who are outspoken catholics. Those who just happen to be catholics would not qualify. - Skysmith 10:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep. (AGAIN-AS I ALREADY VOTED, BUT WANT TO ADD SOMETHING)-Skysmith--do you mean fanatics like Mel Gibson; trampy hypocrites like Loretta Young and Grace Kelly; IRA supporters like Morrissey, Mickey Rourke, Eddie Dowling; nuns like Dolores Hart (and formerly June Haver); Peter Boyle, a former Irish Christian Brother; horrible/sadistic/reactionary folks like Bing Crosby, Arthur Godfrey, Pat O'Brien; converts like Jane Wyman, the Barrymores (child converts), Sir Alec Guinness; et al--the list is fascinating and should be kept. Why is Zoe allowed to reopen a previously closed subject, particularly AFTER some of us have spent a lot of time, energy and money to update (the list was already in existence before I ever edited, added or deleted anything) this list. Yes, in theory, it could go on forever, but nobody is going to put down unknown, minor or cameo actors from predominantly Catholic foreign countries, and if someone were stupid enough to do that, those entries could be culled from the list by any editor or member of the Wikipedia community paying attention, as someone always is, as I have learned. 67.100.55.13 18:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • First, I think this comment is at least bit out of line. Second, most of those people are not famous for their religion but for their other endeavors. Based on this comment, you plan to fill the list with inappropriate POV commentary about them and that would constitute vandalism. Third, WP has large number of articles about "foreign" people (IP comes from California so I presume that you refer to non-Americans) - Skysmith 19:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think on a page like this POV is not only OK, but essential to the decision of whether or not to keep the list, on which I have spent a lot of time and money and thus have an investment. I don't think I was out of line, but I apologize to anyone who was offended. I used the above examples as examples of how interesting the list can be with surprises and personal details and yes, exposing the hypocrisies and false images of people in the public eye who may not be what they pretend to be, and the Catholic church is a great place to start--it lends itself more to that aspect than say, Methodism or Presbyterianism--given its history of censorship and condemnation. And I don't plan to include POV about them, as it would most likely be removed anyway and would get me blocked, but I think given the subject matter some POV is inevitable, as opposed to other areas (science, technology, mathematics, geography, astronomy, etc.) where POV is wholly unnecessary and should be punished.

By the way, what is "IP", and why do you think I am in California--I am in New York!! Rms125a@hotmail.com 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Again- the discussion on the validity of this list is completely out of touch with reality. We got actors who are Lutherans, born-again Christians,..(they're incorporated in denominations' lists, for instance: List_of_Lutherans, List_of_born-again_Christian_laypeople,List_of_Latter-day_Saints#Actors, List_of_Buddhists#Celebrity_Buddhists,...). This is a list of people who are nominally Catholics (as is the case with Lutherans or Mormons/LDS people). As I see it, we got here double standards. Catholics should not be discriminated against in such harmless fun stuff as lists just because they are majority, numerically strong minority or what not. Mir Harven 18:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• • This looks like intended surreptious advocacy, which is against the WP policy (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not under Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine). And the IP address above refers to Covad Communications, California, so the message at least came through their routers. (Note: I am not catholic, by the way. Any references to catholic practices belong to appropriate articles, like the criticism section of the Roman Catholic Church.) - Skysmith 08:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Skysmith - Who is committing the "intended surreptitious advocacy, and what does it mean?? Am I the screw up again?? Or are you referring to Mir Haven?? Why is it OK to have lists of Lutherans, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Christian laypeople, et al and NOT Catholics?? I think Mir Haven destroyed his own talking points with illogic. WikiDon and NoSeptember, who seem to be the "leaders of the pack" (if you will) have it right. And again, why was Zoe pemitted to reopen this debate which was fairly settled and finalized--isn't that kind of sabotage and willful disregard for the norms of the debate and a respectful acceptance of the will of the majority (why usually goes AGAINST me, by the way) a violation of Wikipedia Netiquette?? If Zoe is an editor then she should be penalized for causing this kind of dissension and turmoil. By the way, Skysmith, why would I care what religion you are?? I am Jewish if you want to know. I look forward to everyone's responses, once again, in this infernal, endless, pointless waste of time, debate, which as far as I am concerned was already settled once. Are Zoe and her allies just looking to keep counting the ballots again and again (shades of Florida 2000) until the count goes her way?? Signing off, Rms125a@hotmail.com 18:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• • To put it simply, POV is not okay. Your comments referred to strong opinions of some famous people and unfortunately number or others have tried to insert their POV into various articles in the past. Also, I am not referring to my sect here since I am not catholic. Also note that I have mostly commented, having no vote but I think that someone's religion is relevant only if they are famous for it (in this case, Mel Gibson would fit the bill). As for your choice of rhetoric, calm down. - Skysmith 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm personaly not too bothered which way this debate goes - but, please assume good faith and stop trolling --Doc (?) 18:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

POV is unavoidable, we are humans not machines. Again, what is "intended surreptitious advocacy" (you spelled "surreptitious" wrong, by the way, Skysmith)?? What is "trolling"?? Why was Zoe allowed to reopen this debate and threaten all the time, money, work, effort that I have spent on this project, which for whatever reason, it doesn't matter why, is interesting and is something I look forward to. I also contibute to the Jewish show business figures page, but admittedly, not as much. NoSeptember promised that the lists would remain, albeit configured differently. Regrettably I cannot "assume good faith", Doc glasgow. Rms125a@hotmail.com 00:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP--there is some useful and interesting info. here. I am a Catholic (from Poland) and I am not offended. Czesć, dzien kuje!! Karas peter@yahoo.com 18:11, 18 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and heterosexuality

Article was merged to Religion and sexual orientation horseboy 22:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• This article should be a redirect, not a VfD. Can someone please fix it and remove this from VfD.Gateman1997 22:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• No kidding. Horseboy, please read Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. A merge does NOT involve a deletion. Speedy redirect CanadianCaesar 22:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've put up the redirect. Can someone close this out.Gateman1997 23:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I would like to know why Religion and sexual orientation was redirected. Was that stuff merged, or just wiped out recklessly? Edit summary doesn't say. Horseboy, please, please, please, PLEASE read Wikipedia:Duplicate articles CanadianCaesar 23:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually it just looks like it was deleted according to the history, I don't see any merge anywhere, just a delete and the adding of an incomplete redirect. Gateman1997 00:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll revert it then. CanadianCaesar 00:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I also reverted the page here on VfD now. And I restored the Religion and sexual orientation article to before the "merge." It was an improper merge, no edit summaries, but if anyone wants to try it again, be bold. CanadianCaesar 00:24, 12 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:44, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Paddon

I'm not sure if this person is notable, but the text reads like pure advertizement for his DVD products Allegrorondo 21:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "Peter Paddon, Author and Witch". Hilarious. He had a coven numbering 22 people, spread across England. He grew up in Tidworth, which is "a few miles from Stonehenge on the Salisbury Plain", which of course makes him notable. He has had two books published by these people, although they only list one of them. I'm more notable that this person.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Someone removed the more blatant advertizing from the article, but still reads like a book jacket. Allegrorondo 21:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed the promotion, but I don't know enough about Wicca to know if this guy is as important as he thinks he is. If what Ashley Pomeroy says is true, then by all means Delete--Outlander 14:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete. I could write that much about myself... if I was, like, really bored and stuff. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I never noticed the word 'notable' in the list I linked from, and would not have added the page there if I had. I mentioned Stonehenge as the nearest geographical point non-local people would recognize, not because it makes me significant. This was not an exercise in ego , just an experiment, one that taught me an awful lot about the people here. Get rid of it. Incidentally, Capall Bann might be a small publisher, but it is very highly regarded by the Pagan/Wiccan community both in the UK and the US, and they do list both books. They certainly don't deserve to be referred to as "these people". Peter Paddon, Aug 11, 2005
  • Comment writing a page on yourself is at the very least pretentious - thats what user pages are for, you are free to write whatever you like about yourself there. But apart from that, my main reason for nominating the article for deletion was the blatant advertizing and POV. Wikipedia is NOT a forum for free advertizing of your DVD products. Allegrorondo 19:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment In case you hadn't noticed, I have also voted for its deletion - I'm new here and didn't know about user pages until recently, or I would have done one of those instead. I'm not arguing that the page violated policy - I'm just commenting on the uncivil manner in which people have responded, which is also in violation of the policies here. Believe it or not, I wasn't trying to advertise my DVDs.. I just found something new and fascinating, and played with it. I should have done that in the sandbox - I can say that with hindsight - and I would have deleted the page myself if this deletion process didn't prevent that (another thing I didn't know about). So I 've learnt a lot about this place, and I've also learnt that there are some who are quick to heap sarcasm and derision where a simple "this is not allowed" would have sufficed. Let's just say it has soured my desire to participate in this any more. I'm just checking in to see if the page had been deleted, and hopefully it will be soon. Peter Paddon, Aug 12, 2005

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RiseIsrael.com

POV advert for non-notable website. WP:NOT a web directory. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as link spam. - Lucky 6.9 04:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert, link spam. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete
• Delete : Strong POV. Manik Raina 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as per Fernando Rizo --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weird. It's really not even an article, is it? Just a blurb for some pretty odd websites.Del.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:49:21, 2005-08-08 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Otche nash

I just transwikied this to Wikisource (wikisource:Transwiki:Otche nash). It's a translation of a prayer into a bunch of languages. Not encyclopedic, and as already transwikied, delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Yeah, good transwiki move. Doesn't belong here. Kushboy 06:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. feydey 20:25, 8 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 14:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deontology as consequentialism

Original research. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. --DrTorstenHenning 08:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I would urge caution here. The subject matter is a serious avenue of study in the philosophy of ethics, and is encyclopedic. It needs some serious attention, most importantly its writing needs to be NPOV. It is in serious need of references. Are there other articles in the Philosophy sections that touch on the subject matter? If there is already a good article on it I'd urge deletion for duplication. If there is no other article, I'd urge applying the clean up tag and bringing it to the attention of the philosophy experts on Wikipedia.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 11:06:40, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

  Reply I'm sure that in the field of philosophy I cannot say that I am an expert, but I am rather confident that there is almost nothing relevant going on in this field and that attempts to reconcile deontology with consequentialism are simply flights of fancy. Realistically, they are polar opposites; it's like trying to reconcile oil and water. I believe that one philosopher advanced a "deontological consequestialist" theory of some kind, but it was more of a suggestion than anything, and I'm not sure that he actually supported the theory personally. Anyway, this article is a personal essay. --malathion ^talk 16:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Re Reply. I understand how you feel, but I'm afraid I am unpersuaded. You seem to be giving us reasons why you feel deontology may not be reconciled with consequentialism. That's fair as far as it goes, Malathion, but it doesn't quite address the issue, does it? I think the issue is the encyclopedic merits of the subject. This truly should not necessarily take into account how "true" a conjecture is, or even how many people themselves agree with one or more of the conjectures. For example, no one today believes in the pre-Copernican idea that Earth was the center of the solar system, but that does not mean an article on Ptolemy and his astronomical theories should not be written. No one today believes some of what Plato had to say about politics and philosophy, or what Aristotle had to say about medicine, but that shouldn't stop anyone from writing just such articles. In 5 years time, some genius Cambridge physicist might show that Einstein's light constant is in fact no constant at all; I doubt any of us would be rushing to remove articles from Wikipedia in that eventuality. Now, I am no philosopher, and I really cannot tell you for certain how widely the above problem is studied. However, I don't think it's as bad as you suggest; I seem to remember RM Hare writing on the subject just before he died (see his Sorting out ethics, for example). Of course, if it stays it's going to need a massive rewrite, as it's got all kinds of problems.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 22:49:18, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

• Reply I understand the NPOV policy. My point is not that I dislike this article because I disagree with it, but because everyone disagrees with it. RM Hare was not a "utilitarian consequentialist" and he advanced the idea as a flight of fancy. No one else takes the idea seriously. That makes it unencyclopedic. Further, this article is a personal essay about the author's own ideas, and not those of Hare. That makes in original research. --malathion ^talk 00:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply Malathion, you continue to miss the point. Ptolemy's theories of planetary motion were a flight of fancy. Aristotle's idea of the number of teeth women had was a flight of fancy. Much of Galen's anatomy was a flight of fancy. Most of Hippocrates' therapeutics were flights of fancy (indeed, all of medicine was a flight of fancy until about 150 or so years ago). Yet all of these things have a place in Wikipedia (and every other reputable encyclopedia) — and rightly so. Wikipedia is a scholarly record of things about us and our world and our past. If it were restricted only to those theories and "facts" which are held by contemporary society to be true or plausible, then an astonishing amount of our scientific, religious, cultural, philosophical and artistic heritage will find no place in it. That we don't believe Hippocrates' quackery or the Intelligent design peoples' fantasies ourselves, does not mean that a record of these beliefs and thoughts should find no place in an encyclopedia. Now, as I have said earlier, I am no philosopher. I have no idea how much scholarly activity is contemporarily centered on this subject. I do know that it has been debated in the past, and it engaged some of the best minds in philosophy. Certainly that has been my impression. Now, like very many other things, it might be deeply flawed, but that is not intrinsically a reason for it not to have mention in an encyclopedia. If you know something of the subject, I will have no objection if you rewrote that article to say "The idea of deontological consequentialism is held by most philosophers today to be little more than a flight of fancy. Etc etc etc..." That's fine (I'm assuming that assertion is factually true). If it stays, it will need a complete rewrite anyway, because as I (and you and the others) have pointed out earlier, it's very badly written. I'm only saying that I am mystified by your reasoning — that to find place in an encyclopedia, a subject or theory or thought has to be true or held to be true by contemporaries. That's absurd.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 02:04:35, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

PS. Do you realize you wrote "utilitarian consequentialist" when you were talking about the deontology-consequentialist relationship?—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 02:04:35, 2005-08-10 (UTC) This was a silly thing to ask, and I'm striking it with apologies to Ryan.—Encephalon | ^ζ  17:21:35, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

None of that changes the fact that this essay is original research. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Malathion/Ryan, I was addressing your argument that an article has to be about things that are held by contemporary thinkers to be wholly or largely true before it may be included in an encyclopedia. This is an erroneous belief. Your point about WP:NOR on the other hand is a very good one; I am rather inclined to view this essay as poorly cited, rather than wholly unacceptable.

Having read once more Hare's "Could Kant have been a utilitarian?", I am inclined to think that the earlier claim that Hare advanced this subject as a flight of fancy is in fact a flight of fancy. Hare was making a serious effort to form a bridge. Be that as it may, I don't think WP will suffer a real loss with the deletion of this article. The problem with what to do with an article or stub that 1. is of encyclopedia value but 2. is poorly written and referenced, is vexatious. Editors like Tony Sidaway usually move to "save" anything that isn't actually incomprehensible gibberish; other editors with higher standards about what should find a place on WP often vote to delete. If I had to describe my own view, it is far closer to the second than the first; by this I do not mean that the former are "wrong," in fact both "types" of editors usually act within WP policy/guidelines. In this particular instance, I feel the page should not be deleted for reasons already elaborated. Summary of what I think should be done: 1. Keep the page. 2. Reduce it to a stub with only verifiably true details of the concept, with references. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  17:21:35, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

• Delete original research. --malathion ^talk 16:47, 8 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ritual Decalogue

Delete this rambling mish-mash that duplicates the Ten Commandments article; it's full of original research (see Talk:Ritual Decalogue); the topic could easily be redirected to the Ten Commandments article where the uniqueness of the word "Ritual" could be explained; "Decalogue" already means "ten commandments/utterances"; anything deemed suitable could be added to the Ten Commandments; as it stands, this article merely adds gratuitous clutter to a serious subject.IZAK 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. IZAK 09:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• To make sure there are no doubts, I'm going to be verbose: Salvage anything worthwhile from this article and merge it with Ten Commandments. Then delete this article and recreate it as a redirect to Ten Commandments. Now, voy a volver a mirar la revista de «Battlestar Galactica» por SciFi... Tomer ^TALK 09:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus to put the material into Ten Commandments. Do check the talk page. Pilatus 14:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It does not in the least duplicate the TC article. There are two Decalogues discussed in biblical scholarship, the Ethical and the Ritual. I made this a separate article because it's not the common understanding of the "Ten Commandments", and I didn't think people would appreciate having it in the main TC article. Izak and Tomer, if you would prefer to divide that article into two sections, Ethical Decalogue and Ritual Decalogue, I would have no objection. In fact, I would prefer it: I agree with you that that's where it belongs. I was merely attempting to avoid the edit war that I thought might follow.

Please delete any original research. I agree the article's a mish-mash; I'm not the person to write it. I came to Wikipedia to read up on this topic, and it's a rather egregious omission on the part of Ten Commandments article not to mention the Ritual Decalogue. Better a mish-mash, which will improve with time as other editors play their part, than silence. Please improve the article to make it more respectable, wherever it ends up. kwami 09:57, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Hi Kwami: It is rather poor form to "create" articles out of thin air, and then admit that they are in fact "mish-mash" to wit! May I suggest that you first learn how to do things in the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Writing an article is not the same as putting down in writing the stream of consciousness of one's mind about any given subject. All you are citing are philosophical and moral aspects, perhaps, of the Ten Commandments...otherwise articles could become splintered in 6 billion ways as each person on Earth comes along and has "thoughts" and "ideas" that they may dredge up from the Internet or wherever. We must be more responsible than that in creating a respectable and coherent online Encyclopedia that conforms to accepted scholarship. What you say here merely re-inforces the need to delete the article (and place anything of value on the Ten Commandments page.) Thanks. IZAK 10:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. I'm prepared to accept the criticism that the article is mishmash, because I know I'm not the best writer in the world. But these are not my opinion about the TC, or dredged up from the internet. They are accepted scholarship, and can be found in standard biblical commentary. You can perhaps find better sources than I. This material needs to be in here somewhere, preferably in the TC article. It should be clear that according to much biblical criticism, there are two distinct Decalogues. One is not a "philosophical" version of the other, at least not according to the sources I've cited. (There will of course be other points of view which I have not found.) kwami 11:28, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

• Keep or merge as above. kwami 09:57, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
• Delete. anything good should be merged with the Ten Commandments article. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ten Commandments The term is notable. Pilatus 12:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Keep. Consensus at Ten Commandments is to have that page to refer to the Ten Commandments proper, and the term Ritual Decalogue or Ceremonial Decalogue is notable in the literature. Clean up, remove original research, then it will stand. Pilatus 13:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Ten Commandments after reducing to the bare bones. This is nothing but a vehicle for the documentary hypothesis (although it goes back to Goethe) and has no other notability. JFW | T@lk 13:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if you don't like the Documentary Hypothesis, it's still notable. Hey, even though I don't like Creation Science, the term still belongs in an encyclopedia. Pilatus 13:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, seems entirely based upon limited philosophical thought — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then turn into a re-direct. If there is anything worth keeping, it could be merged with Ten Commandments, but this is not crucial. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe a slight mention could be made in the Ten Commandments article, but this info primarily belongs in the Documentary Hypothesis article. HKT ^talk 16:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Arcadian 17:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge As per Tomer's suggestion Robertbrockway 22:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteAs per IZAK's suggestion Kuratowski's Ghost 23:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Interesting, valuable and scholarly. The vehemence of opposition to this article is clearly ideologically driven - read the talk page. Alternatively, add as a section of the Ten Commandments article and redirect. ntennis 04:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteAs per IZAK's suggestion. This article is based on flawed analysis of the Old Testament DRosenbach 12:21 11 August 2005
  • It's not up to us to judge if the scholarship is OK, that would be original research and pushing POV. What counts is that the Documentary Hypothesis is a notable view. Yes, the article needs serious reworking. Pilatus 14:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not in favour of merging these with the Ten Commandments article since it is an unrelated set of injunctions. Which set may be Moses's original set may be open to debate, or not, but it's the other one which is known today as the "Ten Commandments". IMHO merging the articles would be misleading; but the article as it stands looks already interesting, NPOV (or if some people think it isn't, it can be made so), and it can also be seen as useful in that it's easier to remember "Ritual Decalogue" than "Exodus 34" which is the place where to find it in the Bible. -- Tonymec 23:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per kwami, Pilatus & Tonymec. Mish-mashery is a necessary first step for many a good article. I appreciate that this is not orthodox understanding, and it needs to be cleaned up to reflect this, but the sources already cited show it is one scholarly understanding, and notable enough for its own article outside "documentary hypothesis" or "Ten Commandments".Lusanaherandraton 11:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject deserves its own article. COGDEN 19:50, August 15, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Beelzebub. This all appears to have come out in the wash; the redirect is already in place and the main discussion transported to another VfD. -Splash 00:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belzebuub

Promotional page for non-notable character. See Google on Belzebuub. Tearlach 15:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: page moved to Mark H. Pritchard, VfD refreshed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mark H. Pritchard. Tearlach 20:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Beelzebub. --Scimitar ^parley 18:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Belzebuub is a notable character. He is known by tens of thousands of individuals who have been greatly affected by his life and work. It is arrogant of you to state that he is "non-notable" when people around the world take part in his courses and read his books. See Amazon on Belzebuub

Adreamsoul 21:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Belzebuub. --Adreamsoul ^parley 16:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Just get rid of it, apparently nobody on Wikipedia has an open mind enough to find the information of any use; from what pure nonsense i've seen here, nobody here is even worthy receiving this information. Since the only spiritual beliefs that matter to Wikipedians are those of the corrupt organizations already in existence; anything that isn't already corrupted by mainstream mediocrity and greed should be deleted. Only corrupt mainstream-accepted information is allowed on the Wikipedia (i.e. information from organizations that collect large sums of money from their members "on behalf of god"), not information from individuals who give away electronic copies of their information and seek no financial support from their students. Good luck finding any truly valuable information from an organization founded on the pervasive principles of modern day religious organizations. I'm sorry that I'm not like everyone else, and I'm sorry that Belzebuub has a different way of portraying himself than most people. I hope that reading the article didn't offend anyone's fragile constitution. Adreamsoul 20:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Beelzebub. --Carnildo 23:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Aaaaah!! They say if you wikilink any particular spelling three times, you summon the Beast! Revert! Revert, I tell you! Barno 01:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- the book isn't doing too horrible on Amazon and it seems well-reviewed. Author may become more notable in his field at a later date. --Howcheng 15:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no support for the POV claims in this article. If the book is notable, write an article on it, not on its non-notable author. Zoe 18:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot the outrageously POV aspect: Known to history as a famous demon, Belzebuub later repented in the internal worlds with the help of Master Samael Aun Weor - wanting to transform himself back into a Being of light. To do this, he was given a physical body with the name of Mark H. Pritchard. Is that supposed to be an encyclopedic statement? Tearlach 03:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

i don't see why the wikipedia should discount this information merely because it is of a spiritual nature. Channels and other spiritual leaders have done a great deal to help humanity. The work of Belzebuub has helped many people achieve the ability to perform Astral Projection; it has also helped many people to become aware of higher spiritual states. I, honestly, cannot see the harm in displaying such ideas. Adreamsoul 03:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not the ideas, but their presentation from a single point of view. If kept, the material would need presenting in a way acceptable to both those who believe it and to the majority of readers who think it extremely unlikely that some guy in Australia is literally the incarnation of a reformed major-league demon. Tearlach 10:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying it would be more likely if he was from someplace other than Australia?  ;) Zoe 19:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Zoe. It happens quite commonly elsewhere. I actually am the incarnation of Asmodeus. A man called Obi Khan Wenobi, showed me the error of my ways, and I'm a being of light now. Tearlach 23:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope you have fun poking fun at new age spirituality, obviously you have none yourself. You're so damn intelligent to make fun of what you don't understand. Adreamsoul 21:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I attempted to make the article more neutral. The body of the article about Belzebuub's life has been changed to more of a neutral perspective. I have also added a section of criticism; please add your criticisms to it. I hope that this makes the article more valueable to the wikipedia. Adreamsoul 15:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Scimitar. Show me material by noted authorities in Judeo-Christian mythology (in this case, I would prefer Jesuits, but there are other choices) who says this guy is a demon made flesh, and I'll think about a keep instead. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 12:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

What do you think that the "Jesuit Authorities" know? What makes you think that because some religious entity is established that it is correct? Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean it is legitimate, take the catholic church for example and all of the corruption therin. Adreamsoul 13:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesuits are Catholic and more than legitimate authorities on theirs and other religions. If they said he was, I'd listen too, despite not being religious. -eric ✈ 21:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic church is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. They have committed so many crimes against humanity throught history: pedophile preists, getting the top Nazis out of Germany after WWII, selling indulgences to "pay your way to heaven", sending children on crusades and then selling them into slavery... It is beyond me why anyone would ever trust such an organization. There is no such thing as spirituality within such an organization. God help anyone who tries to get spirituality at a church, they have none! They have encouraged individuals like yourselves to do whatever they can to discredit anyone who claims to have spiritual information that is different from theirs. Maybe you should delete the wiki on catholicism if you really want to do the world a favor! Adreamsoul 21:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Beelzebub. --Ceejayoz 17:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect (unless the Jesuits arrive! huzzah!) -eric ✈ 21:22, 11 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti religion

Hell, I'm an atheist, and even I want to delete this page. It's just a link to a petition with an un-encyclopediac entry about the dangers of religion. I must say, I do completely agree with what the fellow is saying, but it doesn't belong at Wikipedia. Frag 21:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to atheism. Flowerparty ^talk 23:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nandesuka 23:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's also copyvio. Unless this has an impact, (which is unlikely,) then we don't need this. If it does, then it will be encyclopdia material then, and not before. Sonic Mew | talk to me 23:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirect unneeded, nothing links there-LtNOWIS 00:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. an unencyclopedic opinion, even though it is probably true. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete from this agnostic. NN. --Etacar11 01:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Period. Just look at it. Seriously. Valhallia 11:53, 11 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion ^talk 06:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaltuit

The author of this page has cleared the copyvio, but this religion with only 316 google is really not notable, especially since they are using Wikipedia as their webhost, delete--nixie 03:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I think we should lower our bar for notability for small religions, but even so this is non notable. CanadianCaesar 03:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn small religion. -Splash 03:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- small groups without wider influence aren't notable. DavidH 04:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisment. "It is certainly our belief that there is more to the universe than mere matter and mechanics even if not proveable by any objective means." First person reportage. Hamster Sandwich 05:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per CanadianCaesar. Eldereft 06:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/self-promotion. --Etacar11 22:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Less than active on the Net does not automatically lead to insignificance. -Zflash 00:32, 13 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion ^talk 07:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Association For Consicousness Exploration (ACE)

Advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn advertising. Eclipsed 03:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising, non-encyclopedic topic. DavidH 04:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment"Association For Consciousness Exploration" with the c befoe the i gets 792 google hits, may be slighly notable. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, following the Google hits, it seems to just be a local organization in Ohio and a club in nearby Ohio-based Wright State University. Either way, it's advertising. -D. Wu 00:16, 9 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. I discarded around half a dozen votes prior to vote counting, because the editors looked somewhat sockish or merely new. There were seven valid votes for keep, twelve for delete, two other valid votes. There being no consensus, the article is kept. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and schizotypy

This totally non-notable page is likley to be little more than an paean against religion. Hipocrite 01:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - sounds like the article could do with expansion though. Rob Church 01:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this article is a work in progress. by the by, is Hipocrite a sockpuppet of DreamGuy? his workings almost EXACTLY DreamGuy's style. Gabrielsimon 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: No, I'm not. Hipocrite 15:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: No, he's not, and no the style isn't even close (for example, this article is clearly not against religion, it was put there so you could rant against psychiatrists, per your conversations on Talk:Otherkin and Talk:Therianthropy, among others), and you are one to talk about sockpuppets, having written the article in question under one. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Which is now proven beyond a doubt, see User:Ketrovin's block. DreamGuy 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this acrticle could use some reworking, but its not non notable. Khulhy 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Considering the prevalence of sockpuppets on articles Gabrielsimon has been fighting over lately, I will have to call upon the official Wikipedia:Sockpuppets policy and point out that this person doesn't come close to the 100 edits one needs to verify oneself as an actual real person and would note that the edits he/she does have are extremely suspicious, jumping into articles closely related to ones Gabrielsimon worked on but that aren't otherwise related. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Khulhy is now proven as sockpuppet of Gabrielsimon. DreamGuy 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Could be a great article soon. CanadianCaesar 02:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - As described by User:SlimVirgin on the discussion page, "I can see there being a good article on religion and mental illness, but as this page stands, it's POV, unencyclopedic in the style it's written, and it has no sources. My suggestion is that it be deleted, and the creator (or someone else) puts it on a user subpage and works on it there, until it's ready to face the public, as it were." Also, singling out schizotypy as a specific disorder to mention in the title is really quite odd as it's just one minor classification out of a whole range that would be important for a comparison between religion and psychology in general or mental disorders more specifically. If the article stayed around waiting for cleanup it would just get redirectede to a real article on the topic under a better name, and this title is so specific it's really unnecessary as a redirect as nobody would think to go looking for it instead of, say, Religion and psychology or Religion and mental disorders or whatnot. This article is a completely unsalvagable mess. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment--your outnumbered, dreamguy. guess that means consensus will be keep.Gabrielsimon 02:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur with DreamGuy. android79 02:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with schizophrenia. Seems NPOV to me, not a paean (or, more correctly, a Jeremiad) against or for anything. But could easily be put inside a larger article, no need to break-out everything. Sdedeo 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with schizophrenia or into an article about religion and psychology. — David Remahl 03:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  ... I didnt gdo anything that last time...Gabrielsimon 03:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV personal essay, no sources, strange title, unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry. Vashti 04:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- The topic is valid, apply improvement tag as needed. DavidH 04:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Xaa
• Delete I'm sorry to see things go down this way, but I see little salvagable here. Redirect to Religion and psychology. Friday 05:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hopelessly POV, and unnecessary. An article on all mental illness and religion? Maybe. This? No. Wikibofh 05:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article as it stands is close to being List of religious leaders who I think are nuts. A new article with a tighter and more technical focus could work, but scrap this one. FreplySpang (talk) 10:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is possible to change an article without deleting it ... — David Remahl 11:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• But realistically, is anyone going to in the near future? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• What SlimVirgin said. Also, I think the hypothetical new article would probably not have the same title. FreplySpang (talk) 12:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  Make it a redirect then. There is nothing in this article that would be unfit to be in the history of the article. — David Remahl 23:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. - grubber 11:29, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
• Delete. - There is real potential here, but the article as written is totally unsourced and inflammatory. Attempts to insert a little NPOV disclaimer language amount to little more than lipstick on a pig. If no one will take responsibility for improving the article immediately, we are better off deleting and letting someone else re-create when they are ready to commit to making a worthwhile article.--Craigkbryant 14:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - The relationship between religion, spirituality, or the mystical experience and the schizotypic personality (not the same as a schizophrenic) is a topic of significant psychological research. I've dug up some primary and secondary sources, and would like to clean up the article. If there's a consensus to merge it with a larger topic, that's fine, but I'd like it to stick around for a while as I work on it. Much appreciated. Parker Whittle 19:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic. Potential to offend religious people is no reason for deletion. Martg76 13:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no useful content. Borisblue 14:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, baffling personal essay on an over-specific subject. There's probably no reasion this just can't be in religion, where it would fit nicely and do a solid job of offending religious people anyway...crud, did I just type that? Anyway. Lord Bob 17:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting and potentially encyclopedic idea, but it cites no references whatsoever. Burden of proof is on the article's author to establish that his/her contribution is not pure speculation or original research by citing references. I'm willing to change my vote if a reference shows up. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Comment" It seems unreasonable to expect a diagnosis of schizotypy in any but the most modern case histories. For instance, how would you say Joan of Arc or Joseph Smith or Mohammed etc etc, (in short anybody who has had some kind of faith based epiphany) were suffering from a schizoid disorder? It would be pure speculation in all of these cases because they can never be clinically examined and diagnosed. We can in hindsight say "oh that person diplayed some or all of the symptoms" but with mental illness there are a wide variety of causation, such as chemical imbalance and physical anomalies. For historical figures as outlined in this article it would be impossible to say definitively what the causation of the visions or voices that may or may not have compelled them to action. Hamster Sandwich 22:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While there is no doubt in my mind that there is a link between some people's religious experiences and mental illness (in general), the article in question is potentially offensive speculation about important religious figures with no evidence presented. A researched article on mental illness and religion is encyclopedic, this is not. Sabine's Sunbird 23:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important part of psychological history. If the tone of the article is inappropriate, please fix the article, but don't delet it. --malathion ^talk 01:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - If Parker wants to work on it, then it's got a reasonably responsible editor sheparding it. Hipocrite 15:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

'DeleteThough Parker made a lot of edits last night, none were to this article, so I don't believe that it's going to get done. Prove me wrong.Hipocrite 12:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, appears to be a personal essay, not an encyclopedia topic. I will reconsider if genuine sources are cited before the expiry of this VfD discussion. --Stormie 06:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other discussion, please vote above

{{merge|Talk:Religion and schizotypy}}

• This is such a small amount of information that it should be merged into another article. Forcing everyone to wait around a week, and to VOTE on it is stupid and anti-wiki.
• People should simply make suggestions on the talk page as usual and make edits and merges as usual
• It is asinine to generate 5 times more discussion than the amount of text involved here.

So I'm going to cut and paste the contents of this page to talk:Religion and schizotypy. Uncle Ed 11:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

There's a VfD going on, you don't just declare yourself right and call it off. This should not be merged or redirected, it should be deleted, and we're still voting on this. DreamGuy 12:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Plus, there doesn't appear to be any substantiated information in the article that could be merged anywhere. Vashti 12:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I had moved this to the discussion page, but another editor claimed that doing so was an attempt to bypass the consensus building process, so I am moving it back here. DreamGuy 03:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've dug up some good primary and secondary (reputable) sources on the link between schizotypy and religious belief, spiritual experience, and what not. I've offered to clean it up in the comments attached to my vote, above. Either way the vote goes, the info will find a home. Parker Whittle 04:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Consequently, if any editors have some sources they'd like to see used on this topic, please reference them on the talk page for the article (preferrably something that's easily obtained). It looks like the article and it's talk page have been deleted, but go ahead and add references there, anyway Parker Whittle 18:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoah, as soon as I wrote that the article/talk had been deleted, it returned, disappeared, returned, disappeared like a virtual particle on the event horizon of a black hole. Funky. Parker Whittle 18:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I get it. The "merge" template is screwy; it prepends Wikipedia: to whatever link you pass to it. Parker Whittle 18:26, 8 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics and God

A hopelessly POV list of quotes where mathematicians proclaim their belief in God. Not encyclopedic. I've done the transwiki just now. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pages like this shall not be left undeleted!--Exir Kamalabadi^{Criticism is welcomed!} 09:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic, very one-sided. Yes, I believe in God, but I don't believe in POV quote lists. =P Xaa 09:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. I don't see how such a list could be useful to anyone. Mistercow 10:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Emphatic Delete, a list of quotes by delusional superstitious mathematicians is no use to anyone jamesgibbon 14:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Any list of quotes is unencyclopedic, unless it has been redefined recently. Pavel Vozenilek 16:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, transwiki to wikiquote - I do think by mathemeticians about God are interesting, but it is a... collection of quotes... Sirmob 18:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps the author might elaborate on how 1 = 3 ? Dunc|☺ 18:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as POV. Possible for wikiquote, though. Eclipsed 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete. Interesting but POV nevertheless --Dysepsion 23:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as POV. Very one-sided and not informative in any way. 22:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.98.109 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. I fail to be persuaded by any of the arguments above. It is not just a list of quotes; quotes are given for about half of the people mentioned. It is indeed POV, but that is not a valid ground for deletion in my reading of WP:DP. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • … and rename per CSTAR below. Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. The name itself is POV. Mathematics and deities or Mathematics and religion would be more appropriate, I think. --CSTAR 15:18, 8 August 2005
• Keep but Improve. I agree with CSTAR that the title is POV, as is most of the article. However, I believe that with an overhaul, it could be a valuable article. I suggest the moving of this to Wikiquote and the construction of an article dealing specifically between spiritual beliefs of mathematicians and ideas relating math and religion. The Swami 09:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but Improve. There is a long history of mathematicians speculating on the nature of god - speculation is their job - and the idea of god is entangled with the idea of infinity which mathematicians can be said to have a particular viewpoint on. Care needs to be taken with deciding whether the quoted mathematicians are truly talking about a deity which they believe in or whether they are using the term 'god' as a shorthand for a non-religious concept. -- Spondoolicks 10:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to something like "Mathematicians and God" --Henrygb 15:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like an interesting topic to me, and could be expanded upon. For example I think I might add Paul Erdos's quote about God's book of theorems, perhaps Einstein's quote that God doesn't play dice. Would perhaps be better as a list, and could stand a bit of cleanup. I see no valid reason for deleting this article. Certainly POV is not a valid reason, POV is fixable, only articles which can't be fixed are to be deleted. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. At any event, the content should definitely be preserved somewhere. Paul August ☎ 19:17, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Georg Cantor made great contributions to mathematics, which he himself related to GOd in an interesting way, which could definitly be described in an encyclopaedic style. (Article could use some improvement, though.) --R.Koot 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after some cleanup. Oleg Alexandrov 23:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mathematical beauty, which already has some God-related stuff along with more general content. SpuriousQ 01:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename. It's interesting and recurring topic (I don't get how a collection of opinions can be POV). By the way, where does the quote "natural numbers are from god, everything else is by man" come from? Samohyl Jan 05:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's due to Leopold Kronecker. Dmharvey Talk 12:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Cleanup issue. Pcb21| Pete 11:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps rename and/or merge, and adjust for POV. I am speaking as a completely unreligious (even anti-religious) mathematician. It's a very interesting start for a very interesting historical topic and should be expanded. Dmharvey Talk 12:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A collection of quotes belongs into an encyclopedia exactly why?
  • As the data for an article. Keep. Septentrionalis 19:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Not an article. NPOV. Quotation collection. Positive: mathematicians, history. Negative: no context, unverified (?) quotations, missing Taoists (and Muslims, etc.), no finite bounds, potentially highly offensive to followers of IPU. Consider this quotation about Newton's occultism: "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." — John Maynard Keynes. But the page not only assumes existence of a "God", it lumps the "God" of Newton with the "God" of Erdös, which is absurd. KSmrq 11:01, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
• Comment: What I seem to be seeing generally here is delete votes because the article is just a collection of quotes and is POV, and keep votes because the history of mathematics in relation to religion is a valid history subject. What I propose is move this article to something like Mathematics and Religion or Mathematics and Spirituality and turn it into an article on the historical relation between the two. Or just start a new article at one of these places and remove this one. How does that strike y'all? The Swami 17:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Could someone explain exactly why they believe that the title "Mathematics and God" is POV? Would it be better if we put quotes around the word "God"? The title "Mathematics and deities" sounds wrong to me. It is not clear to me that the article is talking about several gods. I would guess that with the possible exception of Plato, all the quotes here are talking about a monotheistic notion of "God". "Mathematics and religion" also sounds wrong to me, it is not about religion (or spirituality) per se. It seems to me that this article is about an idea. An idea, as expressed by several famous mathematics, about the relationship between mathematics and the notion of a supreme being they called "God" — perhaps seriously, perhaps metaphorically, perhaps jokingly. And in so doing, I would guess, they were also trying to say something important, about mathematics and its relationship to the world we live in. I think, the fact that these mathematicians thought this idea was important, means it is important, if only for the reason that they thought so. Their idea is certainly POV, our writing about their idea is not. Paul August ☎ 19:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's not the title by itself that causes the problem. The POV is caused more by title plus current first paragraph:

A number of famous mathematicians have made connections between mathematics and God, often likening God to a mathematician.

Taken together, these could be read to imply a POV that a God exists. Now, I don't actually read it this way, rather I see this use of the word "God" as a literary device to denote a concept that the average reader will be familiar with, regardless of the beliefs about God that the reader holds. Nevertheless, I think the first reading is quite plausible for many of our readers, and the paragraph is therefore unacceptable as it stands. I would support keeping the current title if the first paragraph was changed so that the overall POV effect was eliminated. Dmharvey Talk 20:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made a few changes along these lines. Dmharvey Talk 20:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would certainly be POV for Wikipedia to be asserting the existence of "God". And I can see given what Dmharvey has said above that the article and title could be read as doing that. David, has now changed the first paragraph to read:

A number of famous mathematicians have made connections between mathematics and various notions of God.

I hope this has eliminated that particular POV concern. Paul August ☎ 20:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

If this is about Mathematics, not mathematicians, where is the formal definition of God? What is the status of the "proofs" mentioned? Are the proofs Constructive? A serious mathematician might view these questions differently from a pulpit preacher or a lay member of the congregation. When Intelligent Design advocates are trying to revise one's science curriculum, one can get twitchy about such sloppiness; it's no longer harmless fun. We (mathematicians) know the proofs are nonsense; they don't. Is there something about the word "God" that causes us to abandon encyclopedia standards? Try this: Substitute Satan or Invisible Pink Unicorn for God and decide if you would still keep the article. Wouldn't you want more confirmation, more context, more discussion, more balanced views? --KSmrq 05:12, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

• Keep. Some of the items are quotes, but the pseudo-quote attributed to Paul Erdös is not exactly a quote. It could be made more encyclopedic, but I see no reason to delete. The article does not (at the present time) seem to be non-NPOV. Arthur Rubin 22:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with comments from User:Paul August. This is a topic that is distinct from any questions about sacred geometry or any other topics in the Category:Philosophy of mathematics. As with certain other VfD's, I am deeply concerned that people who never contribute to math or physics articles (and presumably also don't think much about God in particular or philosophy in general) feel competent to pass judgement on an article outside of thier expertise. linas 23:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and there certainly should be quotes from Cantor and Russell; the second should help the PoV concern ;-> Septentrionalis 20:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment whatever happens, the content from the "Beauty and mysticism" section of Mathematical beauty needs to move here or the content here should be moved there. Personally I think it would work well to have all this content under the Mathematical beauty article (I already voted merge to there above). SpuriousQ 21:59, 18 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 00:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Woodrow

Some sort of screed/rant/POV nonsense. And I used my 700th mainspace edit for this? humblefool® 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Delete without prejudice against recreation as a legitimate encyclopedia article about this person. I'm guessing that Woodrow is notable enough to have an article about, but nothing from this first-person POV essay is salvageable, and anyone who wants to write such an article should just start over. android79 04:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. A legitimate article could probably written in this person as he has written a number of religious books. However, this article is in such poor shape that it would be better to start again. owever would vote to keep even a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as personal promotion (sentences like My original book had some valuable information in it... show to me that he's only tryin to promote the book linked at the bottom. drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Further comment: Notice how the entry is named aafer the author, yet the text is all about the theories in the book. So, as an entry "about the author" it's a very poor one. And about the theory, there's a criteria in the official wikipedia policy at WP:NOTthat states:

Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions...

which I think that fit 100% into this case. And since it goes agains official policy, it should even bee speedied. drini ☎ 06:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, rant, original research, crank. -EDM 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per the above. --Mysidia 06:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - although syncretism of Osiris, Dionysus, and Tammuz, etc. is widely discussed in the field, this article is an advert for the author, and appallingly laid out - if the book is this badly designed and formatted, I would advise people not to bother trying to read it. ~~~~ 07:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First person. not notable. Mmmbeer 14:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic article about non-notable figure. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. May warrant a rewrite in neutral third-person language, but I don't think anything in this version is salvageable to an encyclopedic article. ESkog 21:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete autobiography is inherently Vanity/non-verifiable, even if the subject is notable. Of course, this should be without prejudice if someone writes a verifiable encyclopedic article. IMO, auto-biography should be CSD, but it isn't. Robert A West 21:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite completely Google gives about 8400 relevent hits [8], he does seem quite notable. The current article as it stands is just a pointless POV rant, but it should be rewritten with some relevent information. Cyclone49 00:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone and attempted to rewrite the article from what I found on that google search, although there was very little salvagable information. If someone who is actually knowladgable about this person expands this it would be very helpful. Cyclone49 00:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been re-written and 'polished'.User:M-filecastle

[edit] Comments

• Comments moved here to clear up votes

This topic should not be deleted.

The subject matter is religion.

Is Humblefool? an editor of this type of topic?

There are a series of articles that suggest that Christianity comes from pagan origins.

• Such articles are all over the internet and on Wikipedia as well.

The debates on this topic are widespread and involve both Christians
(interdenominationally) as well as 'non'believers

Mr. Woodrow originally wrote a book - AGREEING that there are pagan roots to Christianity. It was very popular.

It (his book) took many of its assumptions from earlier works by Alexander Hislop (Wikipedia) as well as his theories regarding The Two Babylons (Wikipedia)

The Wikipedia articles on the above -2- subjects LIST Mr. Woodrow as someone who has argued AGAINST these points of view.

THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION GIVES MR WOODROWS point of view as to why he found his own earlier work, as well as the work of Alexander Hislop, to be fraudulent and in error.

Any reader of this particular subject would have great interest in understanding that Christianity, while it is accused of being from pagan origions, is NOT in fact .... and that the historical facts do not support such a claim. Mr. Woodrow, and his book REFUTE these claims.

ONE OF ITS VERY PROPONENTS (Woodrow) is now one of its critics.

What is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to inform the reader to give them insight into each side of a subject and a broader understanding of the topic.
Wikipedia already LISTS a LINK to RALPH WOODROWS nameas being a critic of the Hislop - Two Babylons theory .

The LEAST Wikipedia could offer its readers is what Mr Ralph Woodrows actual thoughts on the matter are!

Micheal@filecastle.com

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle) drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Also: the addition of this section was user's first edit: M-filecastle (talk • contribs)

Much of what is in the original articles by Alexander Hislop
(Two Babylons) are unsubstantiated and are no more than his opinion.
Apparently Alexander Hislops saving grace (here) is that he is long dead.

Mr Woodrow is a known critic (and one-time exponent)
of those very same 'opinions'.

His POV or 'opinion' is RELEVANT for that very reason.
And although some may quible with his syntax or 'phrase-ology' ...
I would argue that the very VALUE of his words are because of JUST THAT
because they ARE his words ...

When other peoples thoughts and ideas are recorded here -
is it incumbent upon the gallery to edit their thoughts ?

Were there an article on Princess Dianna's criticism of the press (here)
- would we correct her statements for grammer or use of analogy?

In an article on the Pope, (here) would we edit his remarks
so as to reflect the Protestant view?

The views expressed are those of Mr Woodrow -
any reader of such a text link would understand FROM HIS WORDS
that what they were reading WAS HIS VIEW ...

Isn't that the point ?

Michael@filecastle.com

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rules for the Direction of the Mind

Just transwiied this to wikisource (wikisource:Transwiki:Rules for the Direction of the Mind). It is quite simply source material, the text of a seventeenth century treatise. As it's not encyclopedic and now transwikied, delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:39, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• delete now that it's on Wikisource. Might also want to "transwiki" links that currently point to this article as well. I fixed the authors article but I see a few more articles link to it. --Sherool 16:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's been re-written as an ensyclopedic (stub) article, so I changed my vote to keep. --Sherool 18:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite. One of Descartes' most influential works is surely encyclopedic. -- Visviva 18:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite per Visviva. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless re-written. --Carnildo 23:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it has been transwikied. Vegaswikian 05:53, 9 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Carnildo's vote becomes a keep, so only the nominator still votes delete. -Splash 00:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge

Full text of an eighteenth century treatise. I have transwikied it to Wikisource (wikisource:Transwiki:Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge). It is not encyclopedic, and should now be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• delete as per nom. Note: the transwiki was deleted as a duplicate of existing text. The text can be found here: Wikisource:A Treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge --Sherool 16:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep The current stub is better than nothing --Sherool 19:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: can't anyone be arsed to write a stub? Dunc|☺ 17:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even if just a stub summary. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten. --Carnildo 23:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: User:Duncharris has graciously written a stub article. Collabi 18:48, 9 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 12:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide Church of Satan

Only 1 Google hit that is not a Wikipedia clone site. This is apparently not one of the significant Satanic organizations, which we do have articles for. Organization's own website has no verifiable information to indicate that it is a group of more than 1 person ike9898 12:49, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete there's a real (though supposedly only semi-serious) group called Church of Satan. This just seems like a dude with a Geocities page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Andrew. Pavel Vozenilek 16:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I vote to delete as well (Unsigned vote by 67.184.14.210 (talk • contribs))

• Delete a guy with a webpage with no links except to a non-existent Yahoo group? I'd say nn. --Etacar11 23:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the most damaging thing is that it is a Geocities homepage :o — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pov fork of the Church of Satan. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:31, 10 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 21:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ultra Rev.

If true, nn. But probably a hoax, the Church in question doesn't seem to have a pastor by this name [9] --Doc (?) 21:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It does according to the site you referenced. --64.185.140.252 22:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

OK that was careless of me - I can now actually verify the self-proclaimed title from his blog [10] - but it is still very nn, so delete --Doc (?) 22:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Would you please clarify the terminology you used: "nn". Regardless, I created this entry, and intended it as serious and worth expanding in the coming days (because of the curious relationship between the indivual's ordaining denomination and the church he serves in), and no, I'm not Evans. However, I've reviewed the policy on deletions and whatnot, and suppose this could be considered a vanity article, though I didn't mean to use resources for useless material, or waste your time if you view it as such. My apologies if indeed this is how you take it. I respectfully vote keep. --64.185.140.252 23:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

replied on userpage --Doc (?) 00:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN, clearly some sort of weird inside joke. Sdedeo 02:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Agree with Sdedeo about this being an inside joke. ManoaChild 03:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 04:47, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. --malathion ^talk 06:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild

Totally inappropriate. A POV based dividing of editors works against NPOV policy, not towards it. Wikipedians should work together, not as US vs THEM but as a whole. Dividing people, classifying them into distinct group, is how ghettos form, and how racism starts. To try this is to claim that editors of belief X must all believe what everyone else of belief X is. US vs. THEM, is a false dichotomy. Truth is not black and white, there are many many shades of grey. To push one POV, or to try to balance only one side of the scales, leaves the other side unbalanced, making the system push naturally toward the POV of the balancing side. This is not appropriate. This is not right. This is not a wikipedian way of behaving.

• Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikinonsenseBillyCreamCorn 21:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe this is a good faith effort. Also, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a project, that is designed to make sure that a specific PoV is not misrepresented, this according to Wikipedias NPoV policies. -- Karl Meier 21:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no different from a wikiproject for Canadians or whatever. Kappa 00:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild --Striver 02:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Darwinek 08:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ridiculous concept. Gateman1997 00:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inappropriate Wikiproject.  Grue  11:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. cleanup constitution for NPOV. mikka (t) 22:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete __earth 17:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC) for the same reasons as the other 2 guilds (Shia and SIIEG).
• Keep provided non-Sunnis can join freely. ObsidianOrder 11:14, 11 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. --malathion ^talk 06:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild

Totally inappropriate. A POV based dividing of editors works against NPOV policy, not towards it. Wikipedians should work together, not as US vs THEM but as a whole. Dividing people, classifying them into distinct group, is how ghettos form, and how racism starts. To try this is to claim that editors of belief X must all believe what everyone else of belief X is. US vs. THEM, is a false dichotomy. Truth is not black and white, there are many many shades of grey. To push one POV, or to try to balance only one side of the scales, leaves the other side unbalanced, making the system push naturally toward the POV of the balancing side. This is not appropriate. This is not right. This is not a wikipedian way of behaving.

• Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonsense BillyCreamCorn 21:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe this is a good faith project. Also, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a project, that is designed to make sure that a specific PoV is not misrepresented, according to Wikipedias NPoV policies. -- Karl Meier 21:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, NPOV must be built by representing all sides. Kappa 00:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as with the two above. --Striver 02:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Darwinek 08:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Per nominatorGateman1997 16:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ridiculous.  Grue  19:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. edit constitution for NPOV. mikka (t) 22:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. This vote shouldnt even be taking place, and is clear evidence of malicious intent against Shi'a religion and editors. If youre going to delete this Wikiproject, then also be consistent and delete the following Wikiprojects:
  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses
  3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism
  4. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism--Zereshk 17:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't be up for VFD if it was like those 4 projects. But it isn't. It is explicitely for editors with a single POV, not a single interest. Wheras those 4 projects are for anyone interested in their subject, whether pro- or anti-, this "guild" is explicitely for people only with one POV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Certanly not, where did you get that idea from? --Striver 11:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete __earth 17:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC) zereshk, its not malicious intent. Shia could still be dicussed under Islam. FYI, 3 others guilds within project islam, namely sunni, SIIEG and another one that I don't remember are being considered for deletion too.
• Keep ObsidianOrder 10:54, 11 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Interfaith Youth Leadership Program

Non-notable high school extra-curricular program in a Massachusetts town of 17,000. Tempshill 05:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per poster. EvilPhoenix talk 09:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more schoolcruft. Dunc|☺ 20:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Temshill. Eclipsed 03:27, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. One delete vote discarded for lack of edit history, but including it would not have altered the outcome. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ahbash (Lebanon)

This page has been on Pages in need for translation for more than 2 weeks without it getting translated, therefore it goes to vfd. Delete <drini ☎> 15:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete EN.wikipedia.org Explodicle 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dtto. I am not sure whether a policy has been established for such situations. Pavel Vozenilek 19:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep', just take out the non-English parts. Kappa 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, ditto. Unless it's copyvio... Scroll down to see the English content. It looks as if someone pasted the same paragraph in several different languages. -- Visviva 02:51, 6 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 14:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John 17

Page contains nothing but the text of the chapter according to the KJV Pilatus 09:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original source material. EvilPhoenix talk 09:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a copy of the Bible. — JIP | Talk 09:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ditto ditto ditto -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless expanded to include something other than the source text. - SimonP 13:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to proper re-creation - I'd like to clean this up, it is certainly notable, but I haven't the time - if anyone else makes a stab at this by close then read this vote as 'keep' --Doc (?) 13:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'll probably go to hell for this, but Delete. ;-) Actually there are probably a ton of related articles that need to be reviewed and then cleaned up, or else deleted. — RJH 15:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Very notable, but it's just source material. Delete.--Scimitar ^parley 18:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - with prejudice to its re-creation. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:03, 4 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. There are a load of votes from anonymous users and entirely new users, some whose first edit is to this very VFD debate. Although such votes are not automatically discounted, I suspect that this is an attack of sockpuppetry, thererfore in this case these votes have been discounted without mercy. What is left is a clear consensus to delete the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaafirphobia

Non-notable neologism that gets 3 google hits from the same blog. Any relevant information about views toward Kafirs should be in the Kafir article, not here.Heraclius 15:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteHeraclius 15:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that this article was made in opposition to Islamophobia, which is also a neologism. There is a huge difference between the two, however. Islamophobia has been defined by a number of respected authors (both pro and anti-Muslim) such as Said, Safi, Esposito, Ye'or, Robert Spencer, and Ibn Warraq.

• Delete indeed the entry acknowledges it's a neologism. <drini ☎> 15:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obvious neologism -Soltak 16:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 16:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I feel Heraclius definition of respected authors is vague because Dr Colin Chee could be considered a respected author too. Also, what is wrong with this neologism? Is it not accurately mentioning that a Muslim can hate a non-Muslim? Garywbush 17:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (Vote made by anon IP) A viable description of the ugly face that racism can take. 22:48, 4 August 2005 (GMT)
• Delete Revolución 23:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 23:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (*User has less than ten edits). Useful new word Bmcgin 03:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment [Author:TCross, 09:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)] This word is obviously NewSpeak (George Orwell, "1984"). The purpose of Newspeak according to Orwell: Compress a thought down to a few syllables so that the mind glosses over and accepts the embedded concept without careful consideration. In this case, the inventor of the word is attempting to implant the idea in the public mind that some Muslims hate non-Muslims, and that hatred is a kind of hatred similar to Islamophobia. Certainly the author of the article may state that idea anywhere and everywhere he likes as often and as loud as he wishes. But the Western world has known about Muslims for a thousand years, and we should ask two questions 1) How have we got along until today without a word like this? 2) Now that we are making war on the Muslims, why do we suddenly discover a need for this word? Here is my answer to these questions: In this entry is the authors define the word as a form of racism that is not between races.
• Keep (Vote made by Anon ip). It seems to me that this is a useful word to define the concept of hatred which is clearly visible in the behaviours of extremists within the islamic faith. The existence of this page here does not imply that all Muslims hate non-muslims, but the existence of this word is useful when needing to refer to those who do hate non-muslims and it is good to be clear that this is about a sub-section of the faith, not all members of the faith. Muslim organisations in the UK condemn the actions of those who we could now say are "suffering from Kaafirphobia". Does the definition state that all muslims hate non-muslims? I do not think so. If we are clear about the definition I see no reason for deletion. 86.133.173.24 06:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Might I be right in coining a neologism for "hatred of non-Christians by Christians"? Because if this article is kept, that is EXACTLY what I'll do. Revolución 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Revolución, yes please go ahead and create your own neologism for "hatred of non-Christians by Christians" because we already have neologisms like Christianophobia, Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism, and Kaafirphobia in Wikipedia. You have my support. Here in Malaysia, Kaafirphobia is a word commonly used in colloquial speech as all non-Muslims, irrespective of religion are commonly lumped together as one category, Kaafirs by Muslims. Sam@mysite.com.my 08:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (Vote made by anon IP). (Its a useful word that is the reverse of Islamophobia and is used in regular speech here in Malaysia, where there are two categories of people, first is the Muslims, and second is the non-Muslims who are treated as inferiors, irrespective of their religion) 219.95.180.120 18:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (User has less than 50 edits). I support its inclusion in Wikipedia as this word has prior use, which can be proven through a search at Google and also on various other blogs, such as Minishorts . Also, it accurately describes hatred of non-Muslims by radical Islamists who are usually condemned by moderate Muslims. Rajanr imposter 07:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please, various blogs? you stated just one and even that, the word kaafirphobia came up in the comment section.__earth 12:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I cannot speak for Rajanr [since renamed "Rajanr imposter"] but are not entries in Wikipedia based on common use? Even the terms such as Islamophobia and Christianophobia were developed by common use. So, I do not see anything wrong with the poster who said the word kaafirphobia came up in the comment section of a blog for this is how a word gets created. Sam@mysite.com.my 02:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kafir and make a subsection of Kaafirphobia there. The term has no widespread use and a google search gives merely 3 results - 2 from a blog and 1 from wikipedia itself __earth 12:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me add that your claim that a google search gives only 3 results is inaccurate for you searched Google Web only and not Google Groups, which gives an additional 1 result. And if we take this third web site, minishorts.net it also has the word kaafirphobia in it except it is not displayed in Google Web or Google Groups. So, I believe this article should be retained as there are 4 known usages but there are surely other usages on local Malaysian e-communities not connected to the Internet. This term was invented by a Malaysian sociologist, Dr Colin Chee. What is your opinion, Earth? Sam@mysite.com.my 16:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (I vote to keep this neologism as a search on Google, both Groups and Web render 4 results, and a search on minishorts.net render 3 results. I am sure there are other web sites that use this term, which was originated from Malaysian sociologist, Dr Colin Chee. There is justification for this neologism as Wikipedia has allowed Christianophobia and Islamophobia. Christianophobia itself is not used frequently at all yet it is in the Wikipedia data base. So, Kaafirphobia has the right to be in the data base too as it is mainly intended to be used by sociologists for hatred against non-Muslims by radical Islamist groups like Al-Qaeda that justifies Kaafir inferiority and Muslim supremacy, which is a form of racism.) DanianCheong 17:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per earth's suggestion. Not notable enough to merit its own article, but is a term in use in limited circles, and so deserves a mention in kaafir. Johnleemk | Talk 09:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - A search on various web sites gives 12 results, i.e. Google(5), minishorts.net(3) and rajanr.com(4) so it is quite notable to merit its own article. I understand the purpose of Wikipedia is for already used terms and not original research. Since Kaafirphobia has been used already, it merits mention in kaafir as well as having its own article kaafirphobia. Sam@mysite.com.my 04:16, 12 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 22:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Germen/Prejudices about islam

THIS IS A PAGE IN USER-SPACE

Totally inappropriate use of user space - Wikipedia is not a political discussion forum. Serious POV issues, etc.

• Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Let them do what they want in their subspaces. Seems a bit like bad faith to VfD someones page... I hope you at least told them first. Redwolf24 20:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep POV and other normal deletion criteria are completely irrelevant in user space. -Soltak 21:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I personally don't have an issue with this user's decision to post this content, but Wikipedia:User_page makes it obvious that this is not what user pages are for. The Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia and Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material clauses in the What should I avoid? section apply here. - Thatdog 22:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Objection, it IS related to Wikipedia, it's an archive of one of his posts to talk:islamophobia. Xaa 22:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • My apologies, I was not aware of the source of this page. I am changing my vote to Keep per Xaa. - Thatdog 22:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Germen is entitled to his POV in his userspace. David | Talk 22:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Insisting someone be NPOV in their own user space? Ummm... I don't think that's possible. While I acknowledge that wikipedia policy does allow user pages to be VfD'ed, I do not think that action is necessary or appropriate in this case. This is an archive of a reply that Germen had posted to the talk:Islamophobia page, I see no reason why he should not be allowed to archive his comments on one of his sub-pages. Xaa 22:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not obviously inappropriate. Gazpacho 23:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, does not meet the criteria required for deletion. Hall Monitor 23:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, user space has enough latitude to allow something like this (in fact, I can see an article emergin in future, or contributions to other articles). And -Ril-, just leave user space alone, VfDing it will not achieve much. -Splash 01:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. This is a stupid VfD. Nandesuka 16:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ObsidianOrder 11:58, 11 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Unusually for a discussion involving so many anons, all who voted passed my personal criterion for suffrage by having a reasonably long editing history suggesting an identifiable personality and commitment to Wikipedia. Three editors wanted deletion, two merge and one keep. There being no consensus, the decision mandated by policy is keep. This does not preclude a merge or redirect. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krishnology

Delete. This article was previously listed in vfd as Krishnaology, it was discussed, and deleted, mainly because it was agreed to be a neology with little use. The article has reappeared under this new spelling. The same arguments for its deletion still apply. The term under both spellings produce a total of 76 google hits. Many or most of these hits are derived from the previous article, and from links and insertions of the term into wikipedia by anonymous logins. These additions seem to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to validate the term in wider usage. I listed the article in Speedy deletions yesterday, and the notice was then speedily removed by 66.68.156.175, one of the anonymous logins that has created the entire content in the past few days. Explanations for the removal of the deletion notice were posted on the article talk page, and on my talk page. I'm not convinced. Imc 17:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep! The present article is not the same content as the vfd article discussed above. This article is about theological infomation, scholarship, new developments, and it is also evolving. There are 5 theological reason for keeping this article.

• The only term used to discuss theology on the Hindu deity Krishna is Krishnology. It has been used to discuss the theological positions of Vaishnava denominations such as Radhavallabha and Gaudiya Vaishnava.

• Although the term Vaishnava Theology is an appropriate application to all subjects within Krishnology, it is also too broad of a term. Krishnology, as an aspect of Vaishnava Theology, is a more specified term and is not aplicable to discussions on the role of other Vaishnava avatara such as Rama, Kalki, Budha, etc.

• The most important aspect of this distinguishment is discussed in the article; "An important outcome of Beck and Gosvami's work is that they have demonstrated how Krishnology is intradenominational by engaging both Gaudiya Vaishnava Theology and Radhavallabha Theology."

• Just as Christology is a universal term within Christian Theology, and Momonism is specific to a form of Christianity; Vaishnavism is a universal term within Vaishnava Theology, and Krishnology is specific to certain forms of Vaishnavism.

• Specialized terms exist to clarify communications. The term Krishnology is a useful term in clarifying the specifics of Vaishnava Theology, as has been shown by recent scholarship.

August 4, 2005 (Usigned vote by 198.214.51.1)

• SPEEDY DELETE if it's indeed the same content which has already gone through vfd and deleted, then it falls under criteria A4 in WP:CSD and therefore it can be speedied. <drini ☎> 18:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you tag it for speedy delete, it gets recreated, use {{deleteagain}} template. And if the user removes it, then a case for vandalism can be started. <drini ☎> 18:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This article and all the stubs it links to seems to me to be an attempt to promote a neologism that ISKCON does not officially use at this time. The only serious ISKON scholar who has consistently used the term "Krishnology" in reference to Vaishnava Theology is the late Tamal Krishna Goswami, who used the term only to reference his specific points vis-a-vis his theological dissertations as a sort of 'shorthand' instead of having to constantly write "Krishna-Focused Vaishnava Theology" over and over again in his Doctoral Thesis, which he did not complete before his death on 15 March 2002. The entire article and all the stubs that were created to link to it are attempting to promote a neologism that ISKCON does not officially use. Comment: Note, however, that ISKCON is undergoing a period of transformation at the present time, and as the works of the late Tamal Krishna Goswami are reviewed and the works of Dr. Guy Beck become more generally accepted, this term may at some point in the future become accepted as standard theological jargon amoung ISKCON scholars - at that point, it should be included in Wikipedia. It just isn't in common acceptance right now, and this article (and the stubs it points to) seems to me to be an attempt to push this neologism into common acceptance outside the community of ISKCON scholars. Xaa 21:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. I agree with the above in that "this term may at some point in the future become accepted as standard theological jargon amoung ISKCON scholars." In contributing to this article I found the 2 most important concepts specific to the term Krishnology have been; "As a term, Krishnology differentiates itself from other Vaishnava theologies by centering its discourse on the Krishna avatar of Vishnu and distinguishes itself from other Vaishnava theologies centered on Vishnu avatara other than Krishna" and that it "is an academic neo-logism for Krishna Theology." These are two very valuable concepts specific to the term Krishnology!

• As the comments above note; Goswavi used the term Krishnaology to stand for "Krishna-Focused Vaishnava Theology." Given the value of the two concepts specific to Krishnology listed above; this article should be merged under more appopriate titles such as; Vaishnavism, Vaishnava Theology, or Krishna Theology, so that these valuable concepts will not be left out. I would suggest Gaudiya Vaishnava Theology, but then Guy Beck's work would be excluded.

August 4, 2005 (66.68.156.175)

• Comment. If Merge becomes the decision, then the ONLY appropriate place would be under Vaishnava Theology. As stated above, Vaishnava Theology is an appropriate application to all subjects within Krishnology. The other links listed above are inappropriate! August 4, 2005 198.214.51.1

• Comment. Or, if Merge is decided upon, then another appropriate area to merge the above infomation would be under ISKCON in general. August 9, 2005 198.214.51.1

• Comment It has to be merged with ISKCON, because outside of Iskcon, the term is not in vogue.--Profvk 22:05, 12 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  20:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Futebol

Speedy delete. nn, probably vanity. Created by user with blocked ip: User:203.26.206.129. Or can just redirect to Football (soccer)? DR31 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Be Bold! humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 18:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dr31. Being bold is all well and good, but this appears to be a non-notable, miniature society of sorts. I've never heard of it before this page, and zero hits result from "futebolism" on Google. 134.131.125.49 19:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderlining hoax. I don't think it's a very good redirect, either. Punkmorten 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to football (soccer). Secretlondon 00:16, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion ^talk 06:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vlado Kotnik & Lado Kotnik

Not notable-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, cvcruft. --Etacar11 01:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Share Bear 10:28, 12 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. This doesn't preclude redirect, but there isn't a consensus to redirect. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heck

• Delete nonsense. Should be deleted or redirected to Hell. Revolución 21:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hell -Soltak 21:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Factual material about a valid topic. Tverbeek 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A word that little children and stuffy housewives say to avoid the word Hell is not a valid topic. A portion of the material is completely false and the rest of it has no encyclopedic value. Should we have articles for gosh and son of a buck? -Soltak 22:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tverbeck, notable euphemism and imaginary place. Kappa 23:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Hell. I can think up of another way kids say hell: h, e, double-hockey sticks. Others could go on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & expand - it is in the noosphere. I would like to see some of those 'ironic religious philosophers', though, and mayber a little history. Eldereft 23:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Minced oath, where other cleaned-up profanities are.—Wahoofive (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to minced oath. Secretlondon 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to minced oath. Punkmorten 12:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Minced oath. Nandesuka 17:02, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. Mary's Eastern Orthodox Church, Calhan, Colorado

Vanity page (plus a redirect page) --Celada 20:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete article bears no relation to title, and is a pious rant --Doc (?) 20:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not nPOV, not encyclopoedic, not on-topic. Eldereft 23:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rant/essay. --Etacar11 01:14, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 19:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kidron

Completing nomination begun by DragonflySixtyseven. If this is a real place, it should be kept (but add enough text so that the pics don't overwhelm the thing). -- BD2412 ^talk 02:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• As I meant to say before I wound up napping at the computer, perhaps we could use an article on Kidron, but this isn't it. And are those photos copyvio?DS 02:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Photos are copyvios and have been tagged as such. Thanks for the heads up. --Alan Au 04:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• The Kidron Valley (or Qidron) is unquestionably a real place, near Jerusalem and featuring significantly in the Bible. Astonished that there isn't an article already. Keep but rewrite significantly. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten as a stub. Probably deserves a rename at some stage. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • "This isn't it". This, on the other hand, is. Keep as rewritten.DS 19:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Make sure rewrite stands. --jonasaurus 21:25, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Audacious

An evangelical Christian youth event in Britain; there are thousands of these around the world. Doesn't seem notable. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Borderline advert, no criteria for notablity met (3000 people is not a lot by megachurch standards.) Sdedeo 09:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

3000 is big for the uk... (Note: Unsigned comment by 82.32.80.168 (talk • contribs); user's first edit.)

Eh, I don't think it's a valid arguement, but Bonus Stage only recieves 2000-3000 hits a week. Note: Timestamp? Sorry, I'm no good at Wiki'ing --82.33.194.36 09:27, 8 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Aramean. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Arameans

The Arameans are an extinct, possibly fictious nationality that is only mentioned in the Old Testament. The page in question lists 3 names and at one time listed 5 (2 were wrong). It serves no purpose and could *easily* be assimilated into the proper, existing Arameans page. HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, or possibly assimilate into the existing Arameans page. Kappa 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Valid info but doesn't need its own page. Agentsoo 17:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, no redirect. Nandesuka 18:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So next time someone tries to find a List of Arameans, they should be invited to start a new one? Kappa 18:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What Kappa means, of course, is that we cannot merge without redirect since the GFDL license we use demands we retain the authorship history. -Splash 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Aramean. -Splash 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Aramean, no redirect. -HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 18:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We can't do that, per the terms of the GFDL as I said above. We have to retain authorship history. -Splash 18:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not just copy the authorship history to the Aramean Talk page? -HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 15:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So next time someone tries to find a List of Arameans, they should be invited to start a new one? Kappa 18:55, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was RELIST. Splash 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Keep-

I find this an extremely valuable topic -- so much so that I just spent my whole day creating a well-linked wikified page based on Connie Barlow's version (including a whole page on Thomas Berry), only to come back and find that someone has created a stripped down version. While I think it has been stripped down a bit too much, it is probably a good holder for now. It is hard to find anything objectionable in it. It can be expanded to be more substantive and useful later, but it is best to start small, I say. I've been writing a lot on this subject lately and, as a blogger, I love to use Wikipedia to provide links to unusual concepts that are poorly summarized elsewhere on the web. So this is a fabulous resource for me. -- Blindeagle cii at igc dot org

Keep-

   Modifications are a good idea for it to fit as a Wiki article, but overall, 

definitely keep. This is a popular topic and it would look bad if we were

silent on it.

-Dr. Jon Cleland Host  (equinoxjjh@yahoo.com)

This is of great importance. For the first time there is a story that can be shared across religions, cultures, international boundaries based on recent scientific discovery. It should definitely be part of Wikipedia. Frances Lorenz (lorenzmf@AOL.com)

Keep but modify The topic is valuable, but even as rewritten by Connie it does not read as a factual/review sort of encyclopedia entry but as a pretty strong advocacy essay for the concept, and with expressions that come across as fairly pronounced hype. I think that might explain some of the discomfort reactions. It may also actually put off a signficant proportion of readers rather than pulling them in. Advocacy is fine on one's own site, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia on which people can rely for neutral and objective information. I think the article should be rewritten to remove the advocacy and hype and to appear and indeed be more or less neutral. I know that's tough for someone deeply involved in the subject, but it might help to imagine oneself as an academic - just describing this concept and its development and versions (theist and non-theist) to their students as one approach out of many. If there have been any critiques of The Great Story approach, mentioning them would also help. Paul Harrison harrison at dircon dot co dot uk

Keep - While there might be a better way to Wikify it the consciousness expressed is far to important to not be in the Wikipedia. Over time, that clean up will take place.

Jim Brauner - jimbrauner@earthlink.net

KEEP The subject matter is critically important to the level of Copernicus, Davinci, Newton and Einstein as to how and why phyical science discoveries have a direct effect on the social aspect of humans and earth itself.

Robert Nemanich rwnemanich@mychi.com

[edit] The Great Story

Keep The Great Story is the story of the human relationship to the Earth and the universe through time. Telling the Great Story entails tracing life back to its roots and highlighting the many miraculous occurrences along the way that make it possible for us to be having this discussion. Wikipedia is an appropriate place for a synopsis introducing the public to the Great Story and the thought that has gone into its discovery and dissemination. Brian Higbie (gringodelanoche@hotmail.com)

Unencyclopedic personal essay, possibly original research. --malathion ^talk 20:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: In the first sentence of the article, it says it was coined by Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme in their 1992 book, "The Universe Story". When a source is stated how can it be original research? Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • But it still seems to be worthy of a delete vote. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• It is not the term that is OR, but the article discussing it is either a recounting of one book (POV) or the editor's interpretation of that book (OR). Either way, delete. Robert A West 22:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless, of course, someone comes up with a reasonable semblance of an NPOV, researched article. Robert A West 22:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The above readers have misunderstood the importance of the Great Story entry. The Great Story is the story of a new cosmology for all the people of planet Earth. The Great STory is the first time in human history that all human beings have the same cosmology. It is also a story that heals the rift between science and relgion. The Great Story brings together into one narrative everything science has learned about our source in the twentieth century. For the first time we know all the molecules and atoms in our bodies were created in the explosion of a star. We were all "out there" at one time. So were all the other animals and plants on this Earth. We were out there in the forms of atoms and minerals. That means we are all intimately connected - all of us every plant and every animal. This is terribly important and perfect for Wikipedia. Bill Bruehl, bbruehl@bellsouth.net Preceding unsigned comment by 65.4.153.7 The essay is neither the recounting of one book nor the editors interpretation of one book. It is, rather, a short introduction to a fairly large body of research. See here: http://www.thegreatstory.org/what_is.html Michael Dowd, co-editor of entry<mbdowd@bigplanet.com>cell: 425-760-9941 204.210.56.185 (talk • contribs))

It is a complex concept that embodies an evolutionary advance forging the meaning of physical science and mythology of humans, but it should be shortened. As for deleting it altogether it would be analagous to deleting references to Copernicus on 1600.(Unsigned comment by 67.37.50.91 (talk • contribs))

• Comment: The problem is that it is too complex. Rewriting it so that it is easier for those unfamiliar with the subject to understand it may make it more likely to be kept. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The article is not OR (as noted by Sonic Mew above) nor is it a "recounting of one book (POV) or the editor's interepretation of that book (OR)." The editor(s) of the article, Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow, are both published authors and are well known for their leading role in explaining and disseminating information from many diverse sources the various and evolving contributions to the "Great Story." Barlow is a scientist and science writer (Evolution Extended (MIT Press), The Ghosts of Evolution (Basic Books), Green Space, Green Time (Copernicus), et al. Dowd is the author of Earth Spirit: A Handbook for Nurturing an Ecological Christianity and he has written many articles and presented "The Great Story" to many faith traditions. The Great Story has inspired many others: authors, scientists, artists, musicians (even a rap artist), educators (especially Montessori teachers), economists (David Korten, e.g.) children's books (Jennifer Morgan's Born with a Bang and From Lava to Life), and many others. Regarding Day/Night or Left Brain/Right Brain thinking, see Leonard Shlain's The Alphabet vs the Goddess: the Conflict between Word and Image; or more philosophically, see Gregory Bateson's Sacred Unity: Further Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Mainstream? Not yet. The Gaia Hypothesis, first proposed by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, and first published by Stewart Brand in Whole Earth Review in 1975, remains controversial 30 years later but it has stimulated a whole new field of "earth systems" and inspired "deep ecology" and "ecofeminism." The Great Story is similarly a seminal idea that is challenging our past views of the relationship, or lack thereof, between science and religion. Debate about the Great Story is welcome, but for those who are skeptical, please consider learning more about it at www.thegreatstory.org. Chuck Lynd <Lynd.7@osu.edu>

I've already expressed my support of this topic in the discussion section, but for what it's worth I will vote for it again here. The Great Story metaphors are provocative and worthy of discussion groups in education, philosophy, and theology. I have followed the writing and speaking of Great Story proponents since 1997 and have been impressed at its adaptability to the theological frameworks of religiously progressive congregations. John Brewer <jbrewer@sunflower.com>

• This has certainly attracted a lot of anons. The trouble is that the article does not make it clear what "The Great Story" actually is. thegreatstory.org did make it slightly clearer to me, but the article stil does not do enough for those unfamiliar with the subject. Rewrite the articleto make it clearer, then come back to defend it. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep

It doesn't seem to be within Wiki policy to delete something simply because you don't understand it. ...or because it may appear to challenge your religous belief. Wiki policy states:

You don't have to vote on every nomination; consider not participating if:

   * a nomination involves a topic of which you are ignorant.

Presumably, that would mean that recommending a page for deletion would be included in the above policy.

In other words, I might suggest that Pokemon pages, for example, be deleted because I can not comprehend the appeal and find no value to humanity for them. Those pages seem like commercial advertising rather than an encyclopaedic entry.

• • But it is the fact that this article cannot be comprehended in its present form that makes it deleteable. This is not about comprehending the appeal of "The Great Story". It is the fact that it is not written to help those unfamiliar with the subject understand it. If you can't do that, then this does not deserve to stay. Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Massive, massive, massive cleanup. I think that it is impossible to tell whether this is encyclopedic in the current form. Also, this just stinks of possible copyvio. It reads like an essay, it's not wikified, it's not in good form, it has tons of POV. I think that a vote on this right now is really inappropriate. Mmmbeer 01:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for all the reasons given, but clean up to put it into Wiki style. KHerbst August 1, 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. < Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

I vote Keep but to have it put into Wiki style, whatever that is. This is a powerful story and movement providing an inspiring integrative view of the universe, planet, human informing both science and religion globally.

I also vote for Wiki to develop a more intuitive easy human interface for keeping,voting, posting etc to promote this interesting concept. See Craigslist for better ideas on how to do this. Also CD Baby has gotten this concept down pretty well. 8/05 Alan Tower [edit]

KEEP Having read so many, many books that reference the beautiful combining of science and mysticism,and the need for a living cosmology; it is hard to believe this concept would be unfamiliar. The Great Story transcends all religions but one source would be books by Christian theologian, Matthew Fox. In Fox's The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, p. 132 he speaks of mindfulness. "It opens their minds and hearts to the universe, to what is and to where we are: citizens of a vast twenty-billion-year history that is still unfinished and which we are called to complete; citizens of a universe of one hundred billion galaxies, of which ours is a mysteriously small one." 206.162.192.39 15:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Susan Heitzman

KEEP That folks are unfamiliar with the Great Story concept is precisely why it is so important to have an article like this in Wiki. I am a university professor who uses this idea (Great Story/Evolutionary Epic/Universe Story)as the fundamental framework for a 2-semester Introduction to Natural Science course that integrates physics, chemistry, earth science, astronomy, cosmology, and biology. Given what science has taught us in the last century or so (and especially in recent decades) about the origin and evolution of the universe, Dobzhansky's famous statement that "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" must now be expanded to something like "nothing makes sense except in light of the Great Story". The idea that ALL of science fits together into a single seemless creation story is an extremely powerful one, with implications that we are just beginning to grasp. I don't really feel qualified to speak to how (or whether) to "Wikify" this article better, but please keep its essential ideas intact. Jim Lorman (lorman@edgewood.edu)

KEEP I feel it fulfills a necessary function, being the realization of a perceived need for a modern Creation Myth. It is neither Science nor Religion, per se, but points to an awareness that life includes elements of both. In our modern world, with 200 years of mechanistic reductonism in the Life Sciences and 100 years since we proved the basis for Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, we need a view to bridge the philosophical gaps in our worldview. Physics has shown that the mechanistic view is wrong, but people in the Life Sciences point to the success of reductionism, and take mechanism as a given. Mainstream Religion doesn't help us to deal with the issues like the origin of consciousness and the evolution of sentient life, and mainstream Science has few answers, which makes The Great Story a necessary pursuit for those who seek to have a satisfying account of our origins. Jonathan Dickau --67.87.247.33 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP I like Connie's re-write, but I had just completed subtantial edits to inform those new to the Great Story idea. It would be nice if someone could weave in some of my changes, as I don't want to start again from scratch. Either way, I still think the topic is essential. Jonathan Dickau --67.87.247.33 20:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

_________________________________

SUGGESTED REWRITE:

"The Great Story" is an umbrella term for a movement that is manifesting today in scientifically literate cultures whereby new cosmological understandings made possible by modern science are translated into story forms that can provide the same kind of foundation for leading meaningful lives, in service to larger communities, that have traditionally been provided by a people's "creation story." Thomas Berry (born 1915, USA), a Catholic priest, academician, and self-proclaimed "geologian," began in the 1970s urging western culture to integrate the new cosmology offered by modern science into its religious expressions, as a form of update needed not only for religious consistency with the world as we now know it but also for the role he envisioned it would play in evoking "ecospirituality," "Earth Literacy," and a sense of sacred relationship to the natural world that would in turn foster a mutually enhancing relationship between the human milieu and the rest of, what he calls, "the Earth Community."

"The Great Story," "the Story of the Universe", and "the Epic of Evolution" are all synonyms for artful renditions of the new cosmology made available through modern science. The Great Story is science rendered as meaningful, motivating, and sometimes metaphorical narrative. A foundational book in this movement is the 1992 "The Universe Story," coauthored by mathematical cosmologist Brian Swimme and cultural historian Thomas Berry. In 1980 Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series, which aired on public television, expressed a celebratory understanding of the evolutionary story that was viewed by tens of millions of people. In a 1978 Pulitzer-Prize-winning book "On Human Nature," Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson signaled the importance of this endeavor of modern, factually based mythmaking by declaring, "The evolutionary epic is probably the best myth we will ever have." Anthropologist and religious naturalist Loren Eiseley titled his first book of essays that celebrated evolution, "The Immense Journey" (1957). Around the same time, French Jesuit (and paleontologist) Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, presented the evolutionary story with a mystical and christological emphasis, in his posthumously published book “The Phenomenon of Man.” Aldo Leopold, a leader in the early conservation movement, wrote of the grand evolutionary saga as "the odyssey of evolution," in his 1948 "Sand County Almanac.” And in the early through mid 20th century, evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley wrote humanistic essays and books attesting to the power of regarding this "epic of evolution" as a form of "Religion Without Revelation."

"The Great Story" thus refers to any telling of a cosmic creation story grounded in the modern, mainstream sciences. Peoples throughout the world have, of course, developed cosmologies — that is, understandings of how land, water, sky, plants and animals, humans, the sun and moon and stars all came into being, what purpose each of these elements serves in the whole, and how the human is to live "in accord" (quoting mythologist Joseph Campbell) with all of reality, known and unknown. Traditional ways of transmitting these varied cosmological and ethical understandings have included creation stories, parables, epic poems, songs, dances and other manifestations of the human capacity to convey sequences of events and express relationships in meaningful ways in order to provide the fundamental context for living one's life. For peoples throughout the world who are still primarily embedded in oral traditions, these understandings and teachings are so deeply interwoven into their cultures and psyches that anthropologists refer to the amalgams as "lifeways." For cultures in which symbolic language has been translated into writing, and in which written documents are regarded as the primary (even divine and inerrant) sources for maintaining and passing on cosmological and ethical wisdom, these understandings and expressions are what is referred to by the term "religion."

The new cosmology that undergirds various tellings of "The Great Story" is mainstream science — that is, reality as understood by the collective scientific community that publishes in the leading scientific journals and which is taught in science courses at leading institutions of higher learning throughout the world. Because mainstream science is grounded in an evolutionary understanding of cosmos, Earth, life, and culture, "The Great Story" manifests as creation stories and parables that celebrate an evolutionary understanding of reality: galactic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, biological evolution, cultural evolution.

The galaxies, stars, planets, and known and possible life forms are all presented by mainstream science to have developed through time by natural processes that can be studied and tested using scientific means. For example, it is possible today to view how galaxies looked in the past simply by using our space telescopes to image galaxies billions of light-years away, which is also, necessarily, billions of light-YEARS distant in time. It is possible to observe the spectra of light radiated from stars and re-emitted by ionized atoms in their surroundings to identify matter existing vast distances outside our own star system. Scientists also employ chemical and thermodynamic calculations to understand how stars today, as well as stars of the past, are forming all the atoms of the Periodic Table of Elements heavier than helium, through processes of "stellar nucleosynthesis." Although scientists cannot similarly witness past biological beings living their lives in real time, they do examine fossils, record the position of such fossils in radiometrically dated geological strata, and study genetic relatedness of living life forms in order to piece together well-supported understandings of how Earth life has evolved. Similarly, the various sciences of physical and cultural anthropology, archeology, linguistics, cultural history, evolutionary psychology, and others allow a vast community of trained experts around the globe, and of all ethnicities and religious faiths, to piece together stories of how the human psyche and human cultures have changed through time.

Scientific understanding of this evolving universe is now so vast, and the scientific disciplines and expertise so fragmented, however, that nonscientists may regard this edifice of knowledge as beyond understanding. Modern peoples may well embrace the applied fruits of the scientific enterprise (traveling in jets and ingesting modern medicines), but many still fail to grasp the cosmological significance of the scientific enterprise, consciously or unconsciously holding instead to pre-modern, non-evolutionary cosmologies. Or, they may be living their lives and teaching their young wisdom and values in fragments, outside the context of any integrated creation story -- that is, outside of a self-consistent and meaningful account of how things are, how they came to be, and what is important.

Thomas Berry has proposed that modern cosmology meaningfully presented should not be regarded as yet another competing religion. Rather, the new cosmology fosters a "metareligious" understanding that will ultimately be expressed in a wide variety of ways in and through each of the established religions and secular worldviews. There are many published (or internet accessible) writings of Christians, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Unitarian Universalists, religious naturalists, pagans, and others who express how this new cosmology can not only reconcile with their spiritual tradition but how it positively enhances it. Some have incorporated this new understanding into established holy days and rituals; some have created entirely new spiritual expressions -- e.g. "The Cosmic Walk," "The Cosmic Communion," and "Great Story Beads,” also known as "cosmic rosaries.” (All of these terms can easily be googled.) Multi-media (DVD) expressions of it are also available, notably titles that feature the work of physicist Brian Swimme, Dominican Sister Miriam Therese MacGillis, evolutionary evangelist Rev. Michael Dowd, and science writer and Unitarian Universalist Connie Barlow. Short multi-media programs are also posted on the internet.

There are secular and religious educational curricula available (for adults and for children) in book or web-based forms. (The website www.TheGreatStory.org is a central node for accessing web forms of these materials.) Curricula accessible through the internet include "evolutionary parables," as well as course outlines and graphics for helping children locate "Birthday Stars" and for learning that "We Are Made of Stardust." "Our Continental Story" provides playful curricula and participatory processes for both adults and kids to learn the 65 million year (post-dinosaur) story of the comings and goings of mammals in North America. "Death through Deep-Time Eyes" examines how a dozen scientific disciplines present a new "creation story" that depicts physical death (of stars and continents as well as life forms) as not only natural but essential for evolutionary development.

The most popular children's books in The Great Story movement are those of Jennifer Morgan and Dana Llyn Andersen: "Born with a Bang" and "From Lava to Life." "The Kids Book of Awesome Stuff," by Charlene Brotman is a popular children's book in workbook form.

Global Education Associates Upper Midwest had published a reader, “Amazing Universe,” that offers text and guidelines for a 6-segment self-guided or group discussion course on The Great Story.

In summary, The Great Story embraces and includes all other stories. It is the science-based epic of evolution that can be told in ways that validate and uplift traditional religious stories by revealing the magnitude of their central truths – truths that have fostered cultural persistence over hundreds and thousands of years. The Great Story not only provides a faithful interpretation of the past; it allows for a deepening understanding of the past, as our awareness and knowledge grow. It is thus “A Story of the Changing Story.” Various tellings of The Great Story also may offer meaningful and empowering ways of understanding the challenges of the present and for entering the future energized by realistically hopeful and inspiring visions.

Rewritten by Connie Barlow - cbtanager@bigplanet.com ________________________________________________________

• Keep I think the rewrite addresses most of the above issues. As I understand it, "The Great Story" is a way of developing a worldview from the story of evolution. This worldview seems comprehensive and inclusive and flexible in a way that honors past and present scientific and religious thinking and looks forward to what may be next. Lisa Carrillo Lcarrillo4tll 21:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• COMMENT. Sheesh, that anons have totally destroyed this VfD page. Anyhow, I rewrote the whole fricking thing. I removed all the POV, killed about 90% of the entry because it didn't explain what "The Great STory" was, and I somewhat wikified. The way it was before was pure propaganda. Anyway, vote away! Perhaps we can bring this back for a revote.Mmmbeer 21:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice work. It's looking better already! If we do bring this to a revote, I suggest limiting the amount of voters, (the usual so-many-edits rule,) so that we can do this properly! Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP Connie Barlow's new version addresses the issues raised above. elisabet@sahtouris.com

• Keep Mmmbeer's version. The long versions are not encyclopedic -- verbosity is a vice, not a virtue, in an encyclopedia. There is a legitimate kernel of an article in explaining what the term means and putting it into proper context. DS1953 23:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, my vote is delete if the anons keep changing this to some sort of forum for proselytizing this belief system. Mmmbeer 00:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP This topic is important, but I would eliminate Mmmbeers version as it's too uninformative to provide any meaningful insight into the subject, or even a worthwhile definition of what "The Great Story" is and what purpose it attempts to fulfill. Admittedly, some of what appeared in earlier entries was 'fluff,' but a reader should come away with a clear understanding of the basic ideas behind "The Great Story". I think Connie Barlow's re-write does that fairly well. Mmmbeer's severely edited form makes the entry almost meaningless. Jonathan Dickau --67.87.247.33 03:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP New version with edits as of this time serves the public well to inform about TGS, but is sufficiently brief, encyclopedic, and informative. It suffers from little or no 'fluff' and tells readers what they need to know, to learn more if desired. Jonathan Dickau - jond4u@optonline.net --67.87.247.33 15:25, 2 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ontological guilt

Unsavable original research and amazingly POV. A few days ago, I deleted an obnoxious picture gallery that consisted of images of George W. Bush, Hitler, and the Holocaust (and I'm a solid Democrat, by the way). This article is the first of the 174 Google hits on "ontological guilt". Article is the sole contribution of User:Delita Figaro, who has not returned to defend her work. --goethean ॐ 19:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete; totally OR. Brighterorange 19:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; OR and it doesn't conform to some of the most basic standards of style on wikipedia. Mistercow 21:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hopelessly original research. Tobycat 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete Not NPOV. If it wasn't completely OR, I would say that nearly all of it was, and that the concept of ontological guilt is not at all widespread or consistent. (However, many google searches will return wikipedia articles 1st in a list--I don't think that by itself shows anything.) WhiteC 22:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and reading it gave me WP:BRD. =P Xaa 00:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. Even written in first person... --Etacar11 02:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The term seems to have very little currency, if any. Matuszek 17:38, 9 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus on an old vote started in April. FCYTravis 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bart McQueary

Delete- Bart McQueary is all hype; an expert self promoter who's turned the non-issue that is his crusade into a newstory through irrelevant inflammation. His biggest accomplishment to date is being a part of a larger lawsuit by the ACLU against a Ten Commandments monument; but that's not even his claim to fame. His claim to fame is that he's a hanger-on to Fred Phelps; if McQueary gets a page here, then all 200-some-odd other members of Westboro, who participate in the exact same activity, also need entries.

• This nomination was made by 70.241.25.240, who has made no edits not related to this nomination. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep.

I see nothing wrong with someone adding entries for Margie Phelps, Shirley Phelps-Roper, Benjamin Phelps, Carl Hockenbarger, or anyone else associated with Fred Phelps for that matter.

Your reasoning seems to be that because he is a shameless self promoter that he is not deserving of an article discussing his rather interesting life.

Your argument does not hold water. 68.217.162.167 05:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This user has made no edits not related to this nomination. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP - Your reasoning for wanting the article deleted almost seems like some sort of personal hatred. There is no telling how far this guy is going to go and his life deserves to be documented in this tome of knowledge that is Wikipedia. If for no other reasons than what you have mentioned - he is what he is. For that matter, most of Hollywood is comprised of attention seekers. Not to mention Washington DC.

I can see no legit reason to delete his entry.

209.42.140.166 21:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is this user's first, and thus far, only edit. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ok then. Do me a favor and go to Melsondorph the Powerful and vote to keep it based on the criteria you just mentioned (There is no telling how far this guy is going to go and his life deserves to be documented in this tome of knowledge that is Wikipedia. If for no other reasons than what you have mentioned - he is what he is).

By the way, what makes you think I hate McQueary?

• Delete not notable, possible vanity Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

DELETE

This man hasn't made any sort of "mark" on the world, nor is it likely he ever will. The reasons given to keep it are wrong for this very reason. If there is a page on this nobody, there should be a page on every other nobody that's out there.65.71.125.180 04:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP I personally do not like him nor Fred Phelps, nor their "religious organization", however thats not why we keep or delete articles on an encyclopedia. He is an important figure head for the "movement" and represents a portion of our society, which he is very notable for. We have to record good and bad topics, otherwise we are destined to repeat the same mistakes. <>Who?¿? 22:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong DELETE He's disappeared off the face of the Earth now, and what he did while he was around was nothing to write home about, except try to (unsucessfully) emulate Fred Phelps; and it's in serious debate whether or not he event meant what he said and did. If McQueary comes back out of whatever hole he disappeared into, and does something noteworthy, ACTUALLY NOTEWORTHY, then I wil be the first to put his article back on Wiki. Until then, he's just another wannabe; does every wannabe get a page? No one outside of Harrodsburg knows who this man is, and plenty of self-gratification articles have been deleted from Wiki before. What makes Bart so special? Mistergrind 23:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment whether or not a figure is still alive, or even around, is not an issue of noteworthiness. Even the people we cannot tolerate, are noteworthy to the thousands of people they influence, however, intolerance alone is yet, not an issue of encyclopedic value. <>Who?¿? 01:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleyte of course McQueary's "existance" as it were has no bearing on his status; Wiki is full of information on dead people. What matters, though, is that his barely noteworthy actions have apparently ceased. It may have been an excuse to keep the page going as long as he was still active, therefore prolonging the possibility that he may do something noteworthy, but now he's gone from the public eye, gone, it would seem, altogether, and he took with him any present hope of being a valid entry into Wiki. He has not affected "thousands" of people; it would be a long stretch to say that more than a few hundred people have ever been affected by him in any way, shape, or form. If McQueary is allowed to stay in Wiki, then entries must be made for every garage band that has performed at venues and has a webpage, for every independant filmmaker that has had their work shown at any festival, for every writer trying to submit their manuscript, for every person who has quarreled with the government or filed a lawsuit.70.243.35.89 22:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping with format, John Wilkes Booth is both dead, and his actions have definately ceased, but that one noteworthy action is very encyclopedic. Again, to one, a persons actions may not be noteworthy due to intolerance, that does not say it is not to another. Personally, NOT a supporter. <>Who?¿? 04:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment What is your obsession with changing my words around and trying to paint me as someone who wants McQueary deleted for intolerance? I have never stated that. One of my pride and joys on Wiki is the work I've done on the Fred Phelps page (another page you have made repeated attempts to sabotage). But the difference between a man who changed the course of history my murdering the leader of a country, and Bart McQueary, IS THAT HE HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING NOTEWORTHY AT ALL. There are people in every city in the USA standing on street corners with signs like McQueary's, preaching the same things as McQueary. Phelps belongs in the article because of his noteriety; he's been on CNN, worked with/for Al Gore, possibly was involved in a girl's death, has been the topic of a nationally read book, and, despite your fervent denial of it, leads a cult. McQueary is none of those things; he's a street-corner prophet. If McQueary is allowed to stay in, then I must insist that you restore another article of mine that you were instrumental in getting deleted, about a local band in Tulsa. They have the exact same level of noteriety as McQueary, and in the realm of music, have accomplished just as much as McQueary has in the realm of religion. Again, I say, if McQueary is allowed to stay in Wiki, then entries must be made for every garage band that has performed at venues and has a webpage, for every independant filmmaker that has had their work shown at any festival, for every writer trying to submit their manuscript, for every person who has quarreled with the government or filed a lawsuit.70.243.35.89 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, I don't feel this is the place for this type of conversation, however, you do not have a talk page, per say. I have no obsession with you nor this article. I do not mean to twist, contort, or demean your comments or vote. It "seemed" your comments were of a more personal nature, and I just wanted to stress the fact that we cannot delete articles we have personal feelings against, nor keep the ones we are in agreement with. With the little research I did on the topic of the article, it was easy to find many supporters and readers of this person. Whether or not there are "hundreds" or "thousands", it seemed he had quite a few followers and readers, with or without reguard to Fred Phelps. I fealt that the person was notable enough, for inclusion, on that basis alone. As far as your band, which I do not recall, or other garage bands. It is common not to include such bands, as they are very many, and notability seems to go hand-in-hand with recording status and the ability to cite references, other than blogs. I am no expert, I just do research to attempt to establish such, I am only one voice on Wiki. Please do not take my comments on article bias as a personal attack or reprimand, as I did not intend it that way. <>Who?¿? 19:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DELETE

Seriously, who knows who this guy is other than the alleged terrified people of that redneck town he's plaguing? Seriously, who? (Unsigned comment)

Delete

Upon further review of the page, as well as the wikipedia deletion criteria, it is obvious that this page should be deleted- as it contains serious bias, and passive aggressive attitudes.

Weak Delete In terms that this guy is just sort of an interesting figure, and there are lots of people on wikipedia who are just so of strange tangenial figures without much real purpose or accomplishment. But he is just a cultist, and not every two bit nut gets his own webpage unless he makes it himself or herself.

• Speedy Delete Nvr herd of him. mlsfreak777

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Bommannan is a hindu god. Whoever is trying to delete will be punished severly.