Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Myth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 is plenty of debate, but the outcome is still quite clear: those who would delete are not persuaded otherwise. -Splashtalk 23:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God Myth

This recently created stub appears to discuss a neologism that is featured in some atheist websites, mostly under the term "Insane God-Myth." Those articles appear thoroughly unencyclopedic, and most (if not all) seem to be written by vociferous, non-academic critics of belief in and believers in any sort of spirituality. This appears to also be the POV of this stub's creator; see WholemealBaphomet (talk · contribs) and Baphomet. (talk · contribs). While the term "God Myth" yields over 12,000 google hits, the vast majority of those hits do not appear to discuss this topic. Mostly, the hits include article titles like "God, Myth, and Society," "Moon-god Myth," "Sun-god Myth," etc. I didn't find anything about the topic of this article among the first ten google hits for the term. This article is, at the time of this post, 100% unsourced, and it seems unlikely that it is possible to bring appropriate sources for this term. As such, this article drew immediate criticism on Talk:God Myth. Additionally, this stub is being used as a springboard for virulent anti-spirituality/anti-religious POV pushing. After this stub's creator's recent failed attempt at creating a redundant superstition cat. for his/her own uses (despite the existence of a superstitions cat.) and adding it to numerous articles, he/she is trying a new tactic. Baphomet. seems determined to link other articles to his/her new stub, which compares belief in spirituality to belief in alien abduction (one of several WP:NPOV and WP:NOR violations in the short stub). I have reverted those links in God and Spirituality, and Baphomet. has, of course, readded the links. Instead of getting bogged down in frivolous edit-warring, I thought it best to use the same method here as was used for the superstition category. That was placed for CfD, and received %83 support for deletion. This stub's deletion will hopefully obviate the necessity for dealing with the symptoms of this problem through wearying edit-wars over a POV-magnet. HKT talk 16:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Part of a POV agenda. - RDF 17:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Precursory check reveals no usage of this term in the manner it is used in this article. Unless the author can cite some sources, this article should go. --Isotope23 17:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as argued on the article's talk page. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think the idea of an article describing a major atheist viewpoint is POV when similar articles exist describing other major atheist, theist, and non-religious viewpoints, as long as such description is done in an NPOV way. But this exact term does not seem to be a major atheist viewpoint. The idea of a "god myth" might be encyclopaedic but not to the extent that it needs its own article and can't fit as a blurb in religion. Lord Bob 18:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Don't agree with the idea, but thats not a valid reason to remove. It's as POV free as it can get, and considering we have a messiah and mahdi entries outside of their respective religions having God Myth outside Atheism is no big deal --Irishpunktom\talk 18:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Original research, rather than POV, is the primary technical problem with the article. In fact, the existence of the latter in the article is fundamentally dependent on the existence of the former. In other words, if this is simply a weasel article incapable of being cited with any appropriate source, the claims in the article derive their strength solely from Baphomet's POV. This seems to be the case. As of now, the article is devoid of any citation, much less any acceptable, notable citation. It seems weird that Baphomet recalls specific comparisons between the beliefs in spirituality and alien abductions, yet is unable to cite an academic or mainstream source. Other sources are irrelevant, as academic and mainstream sources are required to show that it isn't a neologism. HKT talk 20:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Right then, I'd recomment moving it, renaming it to Insane God Myth, removing the second paragraph (till a source is cited) and then requesting it be expanded further --Irishpunktom\talk 20:31, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure that moving it would work. Wouldn't it then become, essentially, a vanity piece? "Insane God Myth" is one web-site's pet phrase; and although I'm sure that the author would appreciate the advertisement, I'm afraid it still has problems that would land it in AfD. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been looking around, and it seems to have a fair auld use outside of indymedia, so should warrant inclusion. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • IPT, the "Insane God Myth" thing could have its own article, but from what I've been reading, I don't think it's accurate to portray it as "outside atheism" so much as "outside antitheism". Tomer TALK 21:28, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
While the "Insane God Myth" gets 631 hits on Google, it seems that almost all (if not all) of those hits are sites that mirror or discuss the same article by someone with the pseudonym "The Forbidden Seer of Truth." At best, this is also a neologism. HKT talk 23:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. Baphomet has now linked to an atheist website that uses the words "god myth" twice, both times uncapitalized. (This stub refers to the "God Myth." If anything, the uncapitalized term in this site indicates that there is no well established term ("God Myth") that represents the concept/belief that belief in God is a myth; it seems the site could have just as well written "god fable" or "god fiction".) I've not yet researched the website, so I don't yet know if it is academic or mainstream. I suspect that it is neither. If I am wrong, the term still doesn't seem well established. If I am right, the term certainly remains a neologism. HKT talk 23:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- There's simply not enough content to make it a viable, NPOV article. KHM03 18:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, original research. Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Str1977 19:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tomer TALK 20:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete changed from keep see below (argument used for keep for historical value if any) while I don't agree with the beliefs behind the article I have heard the term used by many people on both sides of the issue and have for years. So I believe this to be true terminology and a vaid article. It may be a bit POV but two things to say about that one it can be reworked and two no encyclopedia in the world is completly lacking POV and no articles on here completly lack POV. It might be better to merge it with an article on Atheism and say that some use this term to describe religion because then it doesnt say anything is deffinatly "god myth" but also aknowledges other peoples POV somewhere. I do admit its a tough line to find but thats my two centsworth--Shimonnyman 09:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. Merge with atheism (or another appropriate article) and delete. A redirect may be needed though to the merged article destination(mabey not). JDR 15:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and also delete User:WholemealBaphomet for being a reincarnation of User:CheeseDreams. JFW | T@lk 20:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It's you that's been at the cheese.--WholemealBaphomet 23:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At best, redirect to deity without merging. -Sean Curtin 05:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not atheisist it perfectly possible to beleive in God and not beleive in human religion. The existance of God may not vindictate any religion, my personal opinion is that if god exists any connection between it and religion will be pure coincidence.--WholemealBaphomet 23:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Your personal convictions have no bearing here. JFW | T@lk 08:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Do you think it is only yours that are imprtant, or do you have some other reasons for scatering yours around the Wiki, whilst complaining about others doing the same?--WholemealBaphomet 08:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is probably not the right place to start a discussion about the relative imprtance of mine vs your opinions. I take great delight at scatering them around the Wiki, because I know they are much less controversial than yours and typically don't end up on AFD. JFW | T@lk 16:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank God this bit of jargon is quite lost on me. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Firstly I'm confused as to what the article is even talking about, the term "God Myth," or those who believe in a "God Myth." The second paragraph would seem to indicate the latter, since it is all about individual responses (defence mechanisms) to, I assume disbelief, or disbelievers, and attempting to make an analogy by comparing those responses to other individual responses in cases that are, I guess we're to assume containing equal or greater fiction? I'm not sure if this section was just mangled through an edit war, but at best its just terribly confused, at worst its completely POV, either way it has no place here. On the other hand if the article is an attempt to discuss the term "God Myth" itself, than there's a fair bit of miswording occuring:
"The God Myth is a term applied by some skeptics, to any belief in a supernatural, omnipotent, omnipresent parent-like entity that is held to be responsible for the creation of the universe. This belief is common to almost all the major religions."
It would not be correct to simply refer to the belief in something as a myth. It would be proper to say that what one believes in is a myth, or something along those lines, but not that the belief itself is a myth. To discuss a "God myth," one needs to be discussing the myths of or relating to god(s)/God. If this definition is to relate to the actual term "God Myth," it would need be more akin to something like this:
"The God Myth is a term applied by some skeptics, to any story involving a supernatural, omnipotent, omnipresent parent-like entity that is held to be responsible for the creation of the universe."
In which case this article would actually be attempting to discuss "creation myths," a term which is already defined to a much better effect in the "origin beliefs" article.Gheorghe Zamfir 09:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Since the author is just using the term to describe his favorite sort of skepticism concerning the existence of any creating deity, the definition can be adjusted at will to conform it to some more sensible standard. However, the more it is improved, the more obvious the article has already been written elsewhere, and much better; and that this is original research. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment The problem is that it not your favorite sort of outlook and your incapable of not try to manipulate the system.--WholemealBaphomet 17:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
This rings pretty hollow, after I have worked with you to raise the article out of the gutter, to dress it up in its Sunday best for the trial. I've functioned as your court appointed defense attorney, as it were. You could show at least a little gratitude for wanting to help, as it appears that without it the article would have surely been burned at the stake. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Just because it is not correct to call a belief a myth does not mean that those who coined the term were being technicly accurate. Antisemetic people don't hate semites homophobics arent nessasarily afraid of homosexuals many missuses of words exist in terminology that doesn't mean the terms are misused it just means they are a little quirky. But a term being quirky is no reason for deletion.
Also I don't find this article to be any more POV than any other article on the entirety of wikipedia the only reasons for delition could be no sources mentioned or sloppy writting as the phrasing is awkward even if it is for the most part correct. --Shimonnyman 10:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Reply Well, first of all, neither of the terms you mentioned are misuses of words. Secondly, this wasn't a misuse of a word I was describing, nor an appropriation of words or evolution of langauge, it was a simple abuse of language. To define the term "God Myth" as it was, would be to suggest that it would then be proper to utter a sentence like, "That boy has a firm God Myth in heaven," or "My friend has a wavering God Myth in Buddah." Obviously these sentences are nonsensical, and far from any claims of a "quirky" coinage that's been established in any circles of discussion. Its a non-point at any rate as the definition has been appropriately changed, but even with the reformulated definition I stand by my comment for deletion, as I said before even in this case its little more than a synonym for "creation myth," but being that its neither established or sourced anywhere as such, nor that its definable as any kind of significant variant, it has no place as an encyclopedic entry.
I also stand by the comment that its POV, since the second paragraph is nothing more than the author's personal commentary, writing your commentary from the perspective of a 3rd party doesn't make it any more encyclopedic or authoritative. But to top if off its poorly written commentary, since it makes no sense. People have self-defense mechanisms, a myth does not - hence the term "self," which isn't to say removing the term "self" to use "defense mechanism" would make a fix, as it would still be a meanigless use of the term. So despite the claim, NO myths have any self-defence mechanisms. Furthermore, it ends the paragraph by saying "In this way some suppose that the phenomenon of stories about a supreme being with a paternal interest in the petty affairs of mankind can be accounted for." In what way is that accounted for? Supposing a myth has self-defense mechanisms, how exactly does that account for the phenomenon of stories about a supreme being with a paternal interest? Given that self-defense mechanisms in no way relate to or explain either supreme beings or anything paternal, how would they have anything to do with their existance in "god myths"? -Gheorghe Zamfir 11:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay I think I understand you now. I reread the article and agree for the most part but I disagree to an extent. There probably isnt enough to justify a whole atrticle on it so I'm gonna change my vote.
However I do believe if there is a section on athesim and termonology it could just have a sentence saying something like: A term used by atheists to describe beliefs in theological stories pertaining to gods. This would describe it perfectly and doesnt give POV however if there is no article like this it isnt important enough just to start an article.
Also I know they arent misuses just don't fit literal meanings if you take the componants apart. --Shimonnyman 12:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a significant term, and the article seems to be designed to push the author's POV. DJ Clayworth 14:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ann Heneghan (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I would say that this article merits deletion as a neologism. The article's author has been arguing (although undoubtedly he would see it otherwise) that it should instead be deleted as original research. Either way, delete. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism, POV, original research Paul 16:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is a request for expansion section at the banner. Lets just wait for it to be expanded before we decide to delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.0.44 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 September 2005 --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE This article could be redirected here. Just a suggestion. KHM03 17:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

excpet of course this has nothing to do with disproving god only a comment on the sad and predictable nature of religion and it adherents.--WholemealBaphomet 17:51, 13 September 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.