Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion and schizotypy

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.