Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern gnostic mysticism

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 of the debate was Speedy delete as repost Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 16:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern gnostic mysticism

Can anyone verify this stuff? Has that new research smell. Tagged "unsourced" but removed by anon. An article by this name was speedily deleted earlier as recreation, is this the same article? Weregerbil 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Has the smell of recreation of deleted material under a new title. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism. The Talk page from that article was moved to this one, which certainly suggests continuity. Can some admin look at the deleted article and see if this is the same one? If so, speedy it. Fan1967 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Never mind about the move. I got some similar article titles confused. There are so many forks here I can't figure out what came from what. Fan1967 22:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is the same article that was earlier deleted by Tawker, yes. --Cedderstk 22:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has enough references and links, so if someone's nose cannot 'smell' this smell, I suggest simply ignoring the article, or - studying the referenced materials. So it is certainly not 'unsourced' and that tag is inapropriate. Btw, I don't mark for deletion everything that I don't like the 'smell' of.Ndru01 22:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The article has wikilinks but nothing to show that the ideas in the article are not original research. Like saying the Moon is made of cheese — that sentence has links to individual concepts but no references to support the combined claim is verifiable. Please see WP:V and WP:CITE. Weregerbil 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a recreation of deleted material. --Hetar 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy - creation of deleted material. The JPS talk to me 23:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What 'ideas' in the article? Can you please be more specific. Combining that physical and non-physical interact, or that soul/mind is a 'driver' of the vehicle. You consider that as a 'combination' never-ever combined/known before?Ndru01 23:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I know a bit about gnosticism, though none of this seems relevant in the least. but there was a lot of effort put into it if its really just fake.. and who would believe what it said enough to be "tricked"? There doesn't seem to be anything wrong here except unverifiability.. no hidden agenda per "hoaxes". drumguy8800 - speak 00:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Hetar Tom Harrison Talk 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How can someone that knows just a 'bit' about gnosticism decide about something gnostic being deleted?!? Ndru01 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What policy !?! YOU are violating all possible policies here. Plus Fuzzypeg was even offensive and disrespectful towards me in some of his messages (which is for sure an additional violation), while I treat everyone with curtsy. And when it was first deleted it was contrary to the policy. There was no consensus on deletion.Ndru01 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


I contributed several times to the discussion regarding this article providing references and links but I see you all are pretending to ignore me. This is an extreme violation of ALL Wiki's policies. I also asked to give me some more days in order to fix the article and add every link and book references that are needed, but you ignored even this !!!!! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!! YOU ALL ARE VIOLATING ALL WIKI'S POLICIES !!!!! skysurfer 7:00 am, 2 May 2006

Thx, skysurfer. Ndru0105:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems forced and reeks of pseudo-science without a clear link to the religion it associates itself with beyond the title of the article; is also slightly NPOV to top it all off. If Skysurfer and Ndru are so adamant about having this information present, try to make it as a small section of the modern gnosticism page--it'll get vetted and reviewed by others watching the page, and everyone will be happier. -Mance 06:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)



  • Keep and expand Oh, you must stop Witch-hunting. I will fix the article and add some further ones, links to books and websites. You can't stop me, I will not violate any policy for sure, unlike you all. skysurfer
  • Comment: Sky-surfer, in that case you may want to copy it to your user space to work on, as the page itself is subject to various reverts and probable deletion. In a previous edit you made (now reverted), you added a bit of context: "Modern gnostic mysticism... is a term commonly used in New Age literature". This needs to be much more specific. I'll leave further comments on Talk:Modern gnostic mysticism), but if you can't find Reliable sources, there will be no point in trying to salvage anything from the article. --Cedderstk 12:09, 2 May 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.