Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible and reincarnation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bible and reincarnation

Bible and reincarnation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has been around for a while - but that has only shown that it is unsalvageably an essay on an unencyclopedic subject. It consists solely of a whole screed of Bible passages, and utterly unreferenced, nonacademic opinionated commentary about whether they may be compatible with reincarnation. There is no evidence of citable secondary literature discussing the subject - and the references are just a concocted reading list. I've no doubt an proper essay on Christian views of reincarnation or Jewish views of Reincarnation could be written - which could include any discussion of the hermeneutics of the Bible in any academic debates on the matter (if there indeed are any). But this essay is just the assertions of wikipedians and should be deleted. We've waited long enough for a clean-up, and it obviously ain't gonna happen.. -Doc^g 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unattributed OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I was considering proposing it just the day before, on article's talk page (here, at OR). Glad I'm not the only one. adriatikus | 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Original research. Danny 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - nonsensical silliness, virtually unreferenced, and the few books listed seem to be written by cranks. Moreschi ^Talk 16:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I guess Jesus came so that we may live again. And again. And again. At least the author is honest in giving examples of someone "might say" rather than what they do say. They just might. Take it to Zondervan Press or start your own church. Mandsford 22:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NO EXEGESIS and WP:NO HERETIC SYNCHRETISM--victor falk 09:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It needs referencing, but the topic is notable, and I don't see anything so terrible about it that we should start from scratch. Everyking 09:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• By a look at the history, I say it could have been deleted at any point in its history. It could be an encyclopedic article. Theoretically. But I think it's better to wait for its next, er, reincarnation... --victor falk 10:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. The topic is notable the same way 'bible and aliens' would be. Notability isn't about what is cool, or speculative syncretisms. Per WP:N, "notability is distinct from popularity". In this case, the topic would be notable if (1) there would be denominations interpreting the Bible (not other sources) as sustaining reincarnation, or (2) there would be scholars (like religion historians) interpreting the text of the Bible in this way. AFAIK there is no Christian denomination standing such a position. I'm not aware of any scholar standing it, either. One could speculate about the influences between reincarnation believes and Abrahamic religions eschatology, but this would be a topic related to religious systems and not simply to a collection of texts (like the Bible). On the other hand, the topic is cool because of the recently developed mixture of conspiracy theories, anti-papacy (in extenso anti-catholicism), popular (both in a proper and pejorative sense) interest in biblical archeology, and the need to fill a void in the "civilised" but secular West. This void may be filled by anyone as he seems to be right for himself - by revolt against institutionalised religion, by turning toward Far East religious systems, by syncretism, by inventing "true" Christians (e.g. gnostics - BTW, they weren't Christians) silenced by the "evil" Church etc. No problem. Everyone should travel this "personal journey" the way he likes and feels it's right. But this searching should be kept in one's personal universe and not promoted in an encyclopedia as being "notable".

Now to the point. The fact that some morons made money on people's ignorance (like Dan Brown and Simcha Jacobovici), insinuating (that fiction may be real, like the former) or speculating (like the later), doesn't make a topic notable. Don't confound notability to ratings points. This "Gnostic revival" we lately observe in magazines, in pop science tv networks, in blogs, in success books (yeah, that's money), is dust in the air. It's pop religiosity based on pop science. There aren't scientists, nor denominations supporting it. Only people making money and a bunch of ignorants paying for something they cannot critically judge. How many of its supporters actually studied the history of the Church? Hm, maybe if you search enough you may find some Liberal Christians related to this media trend (like The Lost Tomb of Jesus religious "consultant", hehe, James Tabor) who interpret the Bible purely metaphorically, in various ways (and I'm not sure they suport reincarnation being in or suggested by the Bible) - but they are an insignificantly small group, small enough to deserve an article titled "Bible interpretation in Liberal Xtian views" (if this article is feasible). Maybe one should "gather evidence" on the topic starting with Biblical canon, Christian eschatology and even Afterlife, here, at WP, before considering to propose "keep" for this article.

The article is wrong because: (1) it hasn't reliable sources, (2) there aren't reliable sources per above, (3) it directly contradicts the views of the great majority of Christians, denominations and biblical scholars, (4) it leads the reader into drawing wrong conclusions (I can imagine the perplexity of the reader of this article confronted to Death and resurrection of Jesus - read the Significance part), (5) it's purely speculative, (6) there is no debate if the Bible sustains or may sustain reincarnation.

This topic stayed open for too long. It seems it's judged politically correctly forgetting about common sense. Anyone can start any article if he provides reliable sources. Otherwise, if the article flagrantly contradicts without sources topics already covered, discussed, with reliable sources, here, at WP, then it should be deleted. I've thought WP isn't a blog.

adriatikus | 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.