Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Architect of the Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Architect of the Universe

This article should be deleted beciase it is an unexpandable stub. GAOTU is nothing more than a specialized Masonic (and possibly Calvinist) term for Supreme Being, and it would be better to state the usage there. MSJapan 15:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Withdraw AfD if possible. I'm very annoyed that this sat for over six months with no real work on it (it was also duplicated as TGAOTU), and was a bad sub-stub until this AfD was filed, and never mind the fact that the person who removed the prod did nothing to the article either. It's very convenient timing for information to surface. If the current material had been part of the article months (or even a week) ago, this AfD would have been totally unnecessary. MSJapan 03:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Then why didn't you work on it yourself during all of that time? No information has surfaced. It was all already available, months and even years ago. The only tools that were required to create the content as it now stands were Google Web, Google Scholar, and Special:Whatlinkshere/Great Architect of the Universe. Before asserting that something is unexpandable, it is wise to perform the research to actually check whether there is scope for expansion. Performing the research involves the aforementioned tools. Uncle G 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Because I never saw the article until I was doing a category cleanup on Freemasonry the other day, and as far as the article was concerned, it was about GAOTU in Freemasonry. Thus, the idea to expand it to Calvin and other non-Masonic usages never occurred to me, because that did not appear to be the intent of the article. MSJapan 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Supreme beings tend to be notable. :) At the very least, should be merged into a related article. Maybe we have a glossary of Masonic terms? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's already adequately discussed elsewhere, nothing more than a definition. Redirect to Freemasonry.ALR 16:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That would be unfortunate, given the inbound link from gnosticism. Uncle G 16:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Somewhat pissed off that it takes AFD to actually motivate some action, but given the material added I'll revoke.ALR 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • You could have taken the action yourself. See above. Uncle G 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Unexpandible stub" isn't a reason for deletion, and it's a perfectly legitimate stand-alone stub anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Being a stub that has no possibility for expansion has been a reason for deletion given in our Wikipedia:Deletion policy since 2003. Uncle G 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. Not enough for an article, better covered as a term of art in an appropriate article. --Improv 18:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interestingly those who delete (my) parts of the article vote to delete it completely. (Given reason for deletion: Can be found "elsewhere") But many thanks to Uncle G for your very constructive work. Interestingly, GAOTU is only a symbol and NOT identical to a Supreme Being. This is just a reinterpretation of "regular" Freemasons of today. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This is neither the time nor place to start wilfull misinterpretation of the position.ALR 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be interesting, although the idea isn't something i would follow. But someone else might find use in it, like for a college essay. FlowerSniffer 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is an idea I understand, seems to be something I might look for in an encylopedia. Chris Kreider 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Freemasonry is an eminently notable organization. If not keep, redirect to an appropriate article on Freemasonry, or perhaps, if we have one, a List of names of God article. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is hardly unexpandable, and barely a stub now. Normally I might say merge to Freemasonry, however that article is already 65KB. At that size you're supposed to "split [the] article into smaller, more specific articles", which is what was done with Great Architect of the Universe. Koweja
  • Keep needs work but notable enough. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:24, 27 October 2006 (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.