Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical Numerology (2nd nomination)

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

The result was No consensus to delete. However, there is a consensus that the article is quite awful and, to a lesser extent, an apparent consensus that a good article could potentially be written on the subject. Further discussion on how to go about fixing the article and on a possible merge, if temporary, into Numerology should go on Talk:Biblical Numerology. Pascal.Tesson 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Numerology

Biblical Numerology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article was just deleted less than five minutes ago (see this AfD); it has been re-created TWICE since then. The first version was nuked as a copyvio; this one is no copyvio but it's still a nuisance. Totally OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - G4; no question asked. This is what G4 is for. — Coren ^(talk) 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete If I saw this article, I would tag it for speedy deletion. CSD G4. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've never seen a speedy, AfD AND prod on an article before... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Wait, then delete This is not speediable under G4, because this version, unlike the previous one, is not copied from the other web site. TenPoundHammer is technically correct in saying it's been recreated twice since then, but one of those was an edit conflict, and he recreated it himself while nominating it for deletion. It happens. The next recreation was a good-faith attempt by the creator to start a version that isn't copied from the other web site. It would be at least possible to write a sourced article on this topic; there are certainly nontrivial sources that cover the subject. Based on the beginning, it looks like the creator is planning to create another work of original research, and if so, it should be deleted, but I'd like to assume good faith and give at least, say, 24 hours for writing and sourcing before deleting it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment; It's been deleted. Please take it to deletion review. — Coren ^(talk) 03:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Refutation The previous deletions were speedies for copyvio. This version, as far as I can tell, is not a copyvio, so a speedy deletion is not warrented. WP:CSD#G4 is for pages delted after full discussion, which this was not, and is only for content "substantially similar" to the previously deleted contet, which this also is not. DES ^(talk) 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Would you mind changing your bolding to something like "Wait, then decide"? Deleting at the end comes across to me as a bit too strong. FrozenPurpleCube 07:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• My nonvote is based on the article as it exists now; if it continues in this way, then my nonvote is for deletion for original research. I have this discussion and the article on my watchlist, and I hope to come back and change my vote once the article is developed in a more useful direction. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I still think it's sounding a bit too strong to say it the way you did. It kind of obscures the point of waiting, you see? I think if there's any problem, it's that the author doesn't know how to write a Wikipedia article. Deleting it once again won't resolve that, it'll just compound the problem. As this subject has been written about in many books and articles (see the links I provided), it's hardly unreasonable to opt for a rewrite over deletion. It's not like the current content is horribly bad. FrozenPurpleCube 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete OR, trivia. I suppose it is possible that this could be a notable topic, presuming it has been written about, but simply listing passages that include a number does not assert notability either. Resolute 04:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Without regard to the current content of the page. The fact is, numerology is a subject of reasonable importance and notability. This includes the bible. See [1] the many books covering it. See [2] the many news reports covering it. Seriously folks, at least consider the subject independent of the article. FrozenPurpleCube 05:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't tell much of what it's all about and/or it's history, more just what to look for. Interesting by its own right, but unless something can come up that gives more to it, this isn't going to survive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See above links for some possible sources. Adding that information would indeed improve this article. Their lack is not a good argument for deletion though, it's an argument for improvement. Here's one source [3]. What do you think of using some of its content to build a better article? FrozenPurpleCube 07:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. No, this isn't very good as it stands. But the article now is not useless as it stands. That there is some sort of number symbolism in the Bible seems obvious; that it is sometimes murky is definitely obvious to the reader of Daniel or Revelations. We have an adequate article on number of the beast; our article on gematria needs some help, but gives a useful overview.

  AfD is not cleanup. All of the problems in the current article are better addressed by editing it than deleting it. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with numerology. Wouldn't this fit better on the existing numerology page? I don't see why an article of this nature has to have its own page when the information it contains would be better served expanding an existing article. Sidatio 16:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup The subject is clearly notable, and IMO specifically biblical numerology is sufficiently distinct from numerology in general that a separate article is at least plausible. The previous deletion was a speedy, so G4 does not apply the previous "afd" was open all of two minutes, so it does not count. DES ^(talk) 17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how one variety of numerology is sufficiently different from numerology in general to warrant a separate article. Biblical numerology is just numerology with a Biblical theme, from what I can tell. What makes biblical numerology so different? Sidatio 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it has been very significant in Biblical interpretaton through much of history. I think that the specific styles of numerological symbolism and intepratation used are also soemwhat different, but even if that is not so, the use of numerology specifically in interpreting the Bible has been widely prevelant and notable, so that I strongly suspect that a separate article is warrented. A merge culd always be done if that is the consensus of the editors involved. None of which denies that the currnt article needs drastic improvement. DES ^(talk) 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit vague for me, chief - no offense. The information in this article looks like it could fit under the Bible article or the numerology article, but I don't really see anything that would substantiate a stand-alone article on the topic.

My vote stands for a total re-write and merge with numerology. Sidatio 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a judgement call. A merge with possible later split, as Bgplayer suggests, is not an unreasonable option. If such a merge is done, i predict an eventual split back to this topic, and that would make the GFDL attributions a trifle akward, althopugh we have done this in many other cases. DES ^(talk) 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with numerology then clean up. Biblical numerology is a notable enough topic to be covered in an encyclopedia so it shouldn't be deleted entirely. The article in its current form is clearly heading for a WP:NOR violation, and should probably be scrapped and started from a clean sheet. It seems to me that the best place to start it anew is in the numerology article where there is a placeholder for it. If it grows into a large, quality entry then it can be spun off into its own article. Bgplayer 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup/source - Biblical numerology is a very notable topic in its own right, the subject of both scholarly research and books for public release. Examples include: Biblical Numerology: A Basic Study of the Use of Numbers in the Bible by John J. Davis, Numbers in the Bible: God's Unique Design in Biblical Numbers by Robert D. Johnston and various others. This justifies its indepdendence from both the Bible and Numerology articles. In addition, a brief scan of the Numerology entry shows that in addition to already branching off into separate related topics for Astrology and others, it primarily provides the principles behind numerology, not the specific applications as are covered in the individual articles about types - many of which differ with usage. As one poster said above, the Numerology article is an "overview," and should rightly be maintained at that level. The Biblical numerology article should be thorougly sourced to avoid OR concerns, but there is quite enough data out there to do this, and that is solved by tagging the topic appropriately, not an AfD. ◄Zahakiel► 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't think two books and a few personal beliefs justifies spinning this topic off into its own article, especially when the main numerology article itself needs more information. Everything in this article currently would be best served on the main numerology page - that article needs help, and this information would definitely help it. Bottom line - there's nowhere near enough notable material here to make a separate article. If someone wants to submit a re-write, sure, I'll look at it. As it stands, though, this stub needs to be merged into the numerology article to bolster it. Sidatio 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. "Two books" were what I found in one minute of online research, and Des (below) has amply demonstrated a much more thorough potential bibliography. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with this; it is unfortunate you would even raise it as an issue, but as you have: I frankly think some of it's a stretch, so my !vote here is based upon the data available. Saying that the Numerology article needs more data is fine, but 100% irrelevant to this AfD, we're not here to discuss Numerology. You don't merge in side-issues that have more than enough multiple third-party notable coverage just to fluff out some other deficient area. ◄Zahakiel► 02:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Possible sources:
  • [4] Astrology and Numerology in Medieval and Early Modern Catalonia By John Scott Lucas
  • [5] The Complete Literary Guide to the Bible By Leland Ryken, Tremper Longman, III, Tremper Longman
  • [6] Every Dreamer's Handbook By Ira L. Milligan: "The Bible is the only legitimate source for the symbolic meanign of numbers"
  • [7] Mercer Dictionary of the Bible By Watson Early Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard
  • [8] Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament By David Laird Dungan
  • [9] Bible Explorer's Guide: How to Understand and Interpret the Bible By John Phillips
  • [10] Religion in Victorian Britain By Gerald Parsons, James Richard Moore, John Wolffe, Open University
  • [11] The Collegeville Bible Commentary: Based on the New American Bible With Revised New Testament By Dianne Bergant, Robert J. Karris
  • [12] Number in Scripture: Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance By Ethelbert William Bullinger
  • [13] Numbers in the Bible: God's Unique Design in Biblical Numbers By Robert D. Johnston
  • [14] Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco By Mark R. Cohen, Peter Schäfer
  • [15] The Blood of Abel: The Violent Plot in the Hebrew Bible By Mark Harold McEntire
  • [16] Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible By Brevard Springs Childs
  • [17] Fundamentals of Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah By Ron H. Feldman ("One of the widely used methods of uncovering hidden meanings of the Torah is numerology based on hebrew letters called gematria--numerology.")
  • [18] The Greek Qabalah: Alphabetical Mysticism and Numerology in the Ancient Worldy Kieren Barry
  • [19] Encyclopaedia Judaica edited by Cecil Roth, Geoffrey Wigoder, Raphaël Posner, Louis I. Rabinowitz ("The sexagesimal method of calculation applies to other parts of the Bible, ... the kabbalistic writers laid great stress on numerology in various forms...")
  • [20] Fundamentalism in America: Millennialism, Identity and Militant Religion By Philip H. Melling ("The ploy of attahing the numbe 666 to teh anme of the beast is a common example of the way fundamentalism reduces scripture to mechanistic numerology...")
  • [21] The Third How to Handbook for Jewish Living By Ronald H. Isaacs, Kerry M. Olitzky ("Jewish Numerology -- The source: The Bible and various rabbinic sources")

The above are just a short selection of what is found in a google books search. DES ^(talk) 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The references from specialized encyclopedias such as EJudaica alone are sufficient to justify the article. an extremely notable subject. As DESiegel says, the books are a very small portion--going back over the last 4 or 5 centuries, there are probably thousands. Frankly, I am beginning to think there is a repeated unconscious POV from those who seem to be inclined to think things related to the Bible unimportant. I'm sure it's merely ignorance of what through the last two or three thousand years has been the major element in cultural life of hundreds of millions of people. DGG (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny - I was thinking something similar of the 'pro-bible' camp. Let's not forget - 1/6th of the world is officially atheist, and another 1/6th practices Hinduism! What's that, you say? That doesn't pertain to the current discussion? You're right - and neither does DGG's opinion about those of us who have the audacity to question the existence of this topic as a separate article. Let's tone it down and discuss the merits of the issue, shall we?

A great many of the books on this list seem to deal with Biblical numerology only in part. Significant, yes, but here's the crux of the matter - the current article is simply dreadful, and its information at present would best be served bolstering the numerology article. I like the idea best about trying it out on the numerology article and seeing if it can build up steam to be spun off to its own article. That, or tear this one down and make it a great deal more presentable. In the meanwhile, why not take what little information there is here and bolster an existing article? Sidatio 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That many of the books only deal with the subject in part doesn't mean much, given their relative number, it still adds up to an effectively large amount of information which demonstrates both the viability and desirability of coverage. The crux of the matter, as you call it, is a clean-up issue, not a deletion issue. Me, I think the numerology article is better served by not including too much of this specific information, and that encouraging improvement would have been better served by not jumping to AFD so quickly. FrozenPurpleCube 01:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of your argument, Sidatio, is a very strange application of the WP:USEFUL argument to avoid. The information would be "useful," you think, elsewhere, so it shouldn't have its own article? That is not a valid reason to delete an entry. As you rightly say above, let's discuss the merits of this one. Wikipedia asks for notability; Biblical Numerology has that. It asks for significant third-party coverage; it definitely has that (a lot of books that deal with it "in part," and several of which actually have titles including the words "Bible and "numbers"). Even multiple sources that only dealt with it in part would be sufficient coverage, and that's without the books that make it the major premise. It asks for NPOV; even this current "bad" content is not out to convince anyone that the information is ultimate Truth. There's no policy of Wikipedia that's even close to violation here. ◄Zahakiel► 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to self - never attempt to write a counterpoint right after I have got out of bed. :-p It seemed a little rambling, and certainly wasn't very well thought-out, so I've taken the time to re-write it. My apologies for the inconvenience.

I'm having a hard time finding an encyclopedic entry for Biblical Numerology - my research seems to show the topic covered as a subtopic within Numerology as a whole. Does anyone in the Keep camp have an example of Biblical Numerology having its own coverage in a general (read: non-religious) encyclopedia? A search of Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, shows Biblical numerology as a subtopic within its "number symbolism" article[22]. I realize Wikipedia isn't EB, but it's a valid point nonetheless. If we write an article about Biblical numerology, we're not only going to be waiting a while for a valid, well-sourced, NPOV article on the topic, but another, established article will suffer as well for lack of information that could really help fill it out.

At present, the article is hovering dangerously close to violating WP:NOT#INFO - it's very little more than a list of interpreted beliefs. (And while we're on the topic of policies: WP:USEFUL? I don't understand what you're getting at, chief - perhaps we can go into that on my talk page sometime.)

The consensus, whether you're for or against it, seems to be that this article at present isn't Wiki-worthy at this point. It needs a complete tear-down and reworking to be viable. At least, though, if we merge it, that information has a place to grow and possibly one day (Sooner? Later? That's up to whoever wants to write it, I guess!) be an article in its own right. Personally, I think it's a workable compromise.

There - MUCH better than my previous, rambling, sleep-deprived rhetoric. If anyone saw that before I rewrote it, I apologize! Sidatio 13:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Any degree of familiarity with Wikipedia will rapidly reveal that the WP:NOT#PAPER policy results in many articles that will not be found in a "general" encyclopedia, and even a "religious" one. Your premise, therefore, that since it's not in Brittanica it shouldn't be here is not going to stand up to scrutiny; so no, it's not a valid point. By the way, there are many articles currently here that are only found in specialized encyclopedias; there is nothing wrong with that. My statement about "useful" was stated above about as clearly as I can put it... it is a strange application, you think that "useful" information elsewhere is a valid reason to expand one article at the expense of another, and I don't think that is reasonable. Ordinary use of "useful" says we should keep an article because it is so, you're saying we should scuttle one to build another - see how it works?

Your other point, that we may be "waiting a while" is a little pessimistic, but even if that were true, there is no time limit, so that is also not a concern for AfD on individual articles. You realize, of course, that any article on religion is a matter of "interpreted beliefs," right? And that the coverage you find on this topic is pretty comprehensive for something vital to said interpretation of many of them? Your statement that "if we merge it, that information has a place to grow and possibly one day (Sooner? Later? That's up to whoever wants to write it, I guess!)" could well be used against many stubs on this site, and there are a profusion of those... small articles are not a problem as long as they adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia, as this one does; and most hardly have the wealth of knowledge attached to it as the list above that's failed to impress you. You're absolutely right that the consensus states that this article is a bad one - this is why we have cleanup tags, even one for copy-editing to encourage rewrites - and, (once more) "this is not a matter for AfD." Even some of those adding to the "bad article" concensus are saying the entry should be kept and improved. That's the standard (and correct) approach to the problems it suffers. Basically... there are adequate tags for addressing your stated concerns; everything you mention that cannot be fixed with patient editing is simply a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IDONTCARE. I'm still not seeing any credible argument from WP policy against this article. ◄Zahakiel► 14:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming a little contentious, isn't it? Settle down, killer.

• The EB reference was an example, not an argument on the whole. It simply exists to help bolster my view that, since this topic seems to exist as a subtopic to numerology in a variety of reputable encyclopedias, then it should follow suit here until and unless it becomes a stand-alone article in its own right.
• There are SEVERAL well-sourced, objective articles on religious topics that refrain from delving into personal interpretation. This isn't one of them.
• We're not discussing other stubs. We're discussing this one, right?
• I'm not the one who called the article into question. Take it up with whoever called for this - or better yet, relax.
• I agree that the article doesn't violate the Five Pillars. However, as it stands, it DOES violate WP:NOT#INFO, and an argument could be made for listcruft - and for all of the fervent arguing coming from the Keep side, no one seems to be fixing it.
• I never said I don't like it. I also disagree with completely removing it (though you seem to think, Zahakiel, that I DO want it gone. Let me address this to you specifically, then: I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE DELETED.) I simply gave the opinion that, if it has to be torn down and re-written completely anyway, why not start it off on the numerology page, spin it off from there if it warrants it (just because it's about religion doesn't automatically make it pertinent, right?), and improve an existing article in the process?
• You're taking this a little personally, aren't you, Zahakiel? If you can't argue the point objectively, perhaps you should take a step back and relax.

My opinion is just that - an opinion. I'm not about to get testy over a Wikipedia article, minor or major. If you don't agree with me, that's fine - it's nothing new in my world, I can assure you! However, I'd appreciate it if you were more civil about voicing your opinion, Zahakiel. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm attacking you, okay?

Thanks. Sidatio 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make this about me. You were the first to bring up issues of religious belief, if you recall, and I referred to it briefly and let it drop. My issues here about are about policy, which you haven't addressed. I am perfectly calm, thank you... I'm just not seeing your argument. Now letting all the rest of that go, let me just address the parts relevant to this AfD; if you have anything else to say to me you have the liberty of using my talk page.

• You wrote, "I simply gave the opinion that, if it has to be torn down and re-written completely anyway." As I said above, there are tags for that; this isn't an AfD issue.
• You wrote, "There are SEVERAL well-sourced, objective articles on religious topics [...] This isn't one of them." As I said above, there are tags for that; this isn't an AfD issue.
• You wrote, "I agree that the article doesn't violate the Five Pillars. However, as it stands, it DOES violate WP:NOT#INFO, and an argument could be made for listcruft." Listcruft is not an argument for deletion, and as I said above, there are tags for that; this isn't an AfD issue.
• You wrote, "...since this topic seems to exist as a subtopic to numerology in a variety of reputable encyclopedias, then it should follow suit here until and unless it becomes a stand-alone article in its own right." See above re: WP:NOT#PAPER; and as I said above, there are tags for that; this isn't an AfD issue.

If you notice a pattern here, I assure you it's not a coincidence. Your perception of the state of my calm aside, there are no polices being violated here; you admit that, yet you want it altered to suit your tastes. I disagree, and I am not doing so in an uncivil way (I am neither a "chief," nor a "killer," but if you are at all interested in my state of mind, I do admit to finding those terms directed at me and others a little patronizing, and distracting from the issues at hand; no need to conjecture) - reciprocally, if you can point me to a statement I made above that you find personally offensive, I will apologize to you on your own talk page. ◄Zahakiel► 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add something to that, because I'm with you in not wanting this to escalate... it is permissible for people to feel strongly about an issue and argue their points accordingly. This does not mean they are being uncivil; i.e., there are no personal attacks. That's a pretty loaded word that is not going to help any, so let's just stick to the issues of the article and the policies involved. I'm sure you'll agree that is best. ◄Zahakiel► 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Better - I appreciate it. Thank you. I also appreciate your offer, but I don't think that's necessary. I may not necessarily agree that one who feels passionately about a topic should argue their points accordingly (it's far too easy to be seen as condescending when doing so, for example), but that's the nature of life - we don't all agree on everything. :-) For the record, however, I will be more formal when addressing you in the future if you take offense to my references to you. That's how my friends and I refer to each other during our many discussions, and apparently I was wrong to use that approach with you. It's a mistake that won't be repeated, rest assured.

I will reiterate - I don't think it should be deleted. We seem to be in agreement there. Also, I agree that the policies I cited do not support deletion (which, again, I do not support). I cited those policies in support for an alternative to deletion. My argument is for merging, if you'll notice my vote. Whatever can be salvaged from an article that everyone seems to agree is unsustainable as a stand-alone as it is presently written would best be served improving the numerology article, in my humble opinion. From there, it can grow to be a stand-alone if someone writes a proper article on Biblical numerology. That way, we improve the existing article and not have one more fatally flawed article hanging out there, waiting to be improved. To me, this seems to be a more efficient use for the information.

Please understand - my vote is for a keep and merge after being suitably rewritten - not for deletion. If I haven't made that clear, I apologize - I was under the impression I was conveying this. Sidatio 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Likwise, I appreciate your last post. I did understand you are moving for "keep and merge," yes. My contention is that, with the multitude of references available, the notability of this precise topic in its proper circles (and these circles are, yes, religious ones, since it is about "Biblical" numerology) and the degree of difference from the overall issue of numerology (some of the interpretations diverge widely) it has more than enough qualifications for a stand-alone. Since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, you are certainly going to find topics that have been placed together in published works like Brittanica separated here since they can be given a more thorough coverage, and we do have the resources to do that with this one. Aside from that, we'll just have to see how the consensus comes out. Thank you again. ◄Zahakiel► 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also unconvinced that a merge is the appropriate action in this case. Some brief coverage of biblical numerology in the numerology article is important, yes, (and so is coverage on say, a page involving the Holy Bible) but that coverage can only be such a brief summary that it would not give an appropriate level of coverage to this important subject. Yes, certainly the current page isn't much, it might well be better to start off with a blank page, but that's a question related to a preference in how to build a better encyclopedia, not a question about the subject itself. Do any of us objectively know what goes into making a good page? I doubt it. It's not like a cookbook. We can measure the results, but the how? Far too many variables to get a grasp on that. FrozenPurpleCube 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• comment a speedy was just placed once again on this article as G4, by Sidatio; I do not think this is a correct representation of the present state of the AfD so I removed it. DGG (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• No, sir, you are mistaken. The template was placed by Blueboy96, and the reason given was for a G6, not a G4. It was removed by Philippe, with the reason given "removed repost- this is a significantly different version of the article, and not a copyvio, which is why the previous version was deleted". This is clearly stated in the edit history. [[23]] Since it seemed to be removed under the wrong pretense, and it was stated earlier in this discussion that we were giving the article 24 hours for better writing and sourcing, I was under the impression the decision had been made. So, I restored the template. I will not do so again, but I have notified the user who originally placed the template that it was removed and will point them to this talk page. If anyone is going to attribute anything to me, please make sure it is done so correctly. I make every effort to return the courtesy. Thank you. Sidatio 13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to say the least, the history of this page is a little complicated! At the base of it, is that it was entered here twice. I have no doubt whatever that whoever replaced the template the different times it was replaced was doing so in complete good faith. At one point, it did look like a copyvio; at other points, it did look like a repost. So my full apologies, if what I said came out wrong. I do not think any of the re-placements of the template were attempts to short-circuit the discussion. Let us continue to have a proper discussion: there is more than one reasonable approach to the article. 19:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

G6 isn't relevant here, it's for house-keeping purposes only, in non-controversial circumstances. That is not an option here, given this very discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: So, what are we doing here? No one's editing the article that I can tell, and we haven't had any more discussion on this. Sidatio 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Shooting bull, I guess. If you want to discuss improving the article, the talk page is where I'd go, and if you need further help, there are some other avenues. If you don't care, then maybe list it and hope somebody else fixes it in the future? FrozenPurpleCube 21:57, 26 July 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.