Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gnostics

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. --Coredesat 07:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Gnostics

List of Gnostics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The material in this article no longer serves its intended purpose and Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica contains the same information. Note to admin Famous Gnostics redirects here, please delete both. (Prod by User:Jbolden1517 converted to AfD.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agree that the above was what I wrote on the template and that I think the article should be deleted. Note that no editor has put any actual content here (nor AFAIKT does anyone agree with the content copied from the cat). I just grabbed the info from the category. A few bots have gotten involved and User:PRehse altered the cat. jbolden1517^Talk 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong delete - not only original resarch, but completely unhistorical: Moses? Gnosticism didn't exist for 1500 years after his death. Mohammed? You must be kidding me. Joan of Arc? And the rest of the list is just as bad. 64.178.96.168 19:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  To Mega Therion? For pete's sake, this is the beast in revelation! It's not even a person. Min (god)? 64.178.96.168 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is misleading, Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica covers everything. Pax:Vobiscum 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete If this was a list of links to otehr articles, it might possibly have some merit (but I doubt it). It seems to be an indiscriminate list of people, not a list of members of the early Christian gnostic sect. Even if it were that, it ought to be a category, not a list. I note that the same material appearts in Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, which certainly makes this list redundant. I presume that the list is those claimed by certain occultists to be gnostics. I suppose Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica and its parent article can remain, but this one serves no purpose. I presume there are articels on gnostic literature of 2nd century AD. These articles should be clearly distinguishable from that. Peterkingiron 23:31, 3 May 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.