Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Woodrow (2nd nomination)

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 No consesus; kept. Dan100 (Talk) 10:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Woodrow

Tally (delete/keep/merge) (9/6/0)
Just to note that this vote needs to be closed and their is no consensus to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on July 30, 2005. I closed the VfD on August 7, 2005 with a consensus to delete, and deleted the article. That VfD can be found below. User:M-filecastle brought it to my attention that the article had undergone a significant rewrite and that the existing VfD might not reflect actual consensus. (All delete votes were cast before the rewrite.) I investigated, and found that the article had indeed been revised extensively (from a stub to a decent-sized article). In the interests of fairness, I have agreed to re-submit the article to VfD for a new consensus. I am not voting in this nomination, and I will not close the new result; it will be left to the descretion of a different admin. Essjay · Talk 04:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as vanity, I'd say. Author of 18 books -- but all published by his own vanity press. I'd be willing to reconsider if someone could demonstrate that others look to those works as somehow seminal or influential. But that's missing from the article. Nandesuka 04:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)d
  • Delete, non notable. Claim to fame is the industry of his own vanity press. Sdedeo 05:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ~ This man is a 'link' from another Wikipedia page. He is well known and often quoted in religious discussions.

How notable does one have to be? Yahoo has over 11,000 hits on his name alone... When entered as woodrow+babylon over 80,000 hits are found! He has sold over 500,000 books.
An addendum can be made to reflect the influence he holds on this subject.
He (Woodrow) refutes the idea that Christianity developed from pagan roots (having recanted of holding the same view) and is duly noted as a well researched 'critic' on the Original Linked Page. Wikipedians should be able to see WHY he is critical of the false allegations Hislop made. Original criticism(s) of this page were primarily that it was not very well written and disjointed.
The article has since been totally re-written (with the help of others here) and polished so as to better reflect the encyclopedic format.
The 're-written' version of the article is found here: Ralph Woodrow
--M-filecastle 06:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep -- this presents a clear (if slightly non-concise) reason why a published writer has "recanted" from early views. If someone, reading his early work but unacquainetd with the later, were to come here, they would be informed and allowed to view his works in perspective. It also saves an article on "Hislop -- why he was wrong" --Simon Cursitor 07:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Very little encyclopaedic content, which threatens ideological bias. The wiki should reflect knowledge, not shape it. Needs another major overhaul to earn my keep vote. The JPS 12:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep In terms of Amazon sales, the best rank I could find for one of his books was about ~100k, for another text not mentioned at all in the article. Works like "The Babylon Connection" score slightly lower, around 150k, which is on the low end for notable authors. The theological debate does deserve coverage, but this bio page may not be the best place to do that, and a heavy cleanup is still clearly needed. However, messy writing isn't really a qualification for deletion. --170.2.52.28 17:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Logged out mysteriously. --Icelight 17:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not even about the Woodrow's book: 98% of the article is criticism of Hilsop i.e., propaganda of a single POV and promotion of a nonnotable person: 533 unique google hits, most of which from lists at book sale websites. mikka (t) 00:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV/non-encyclopedic. --Etacar11 00:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Again? Please. The encyclopedic content of the rewritten article boils down to the following: *:Ralph Woodrow is an evangelical Christian minister. [Dates and bio-info here.] He formerly supported the theories of Hislop as to the syncretic or pagan origins of Catholicism and wrote a book saying so, but has since changed his views and written another book saying so. [Links to ISBNs of Woodrow's two books here, and to Woodrow's external site.] End article. Anything more than that, including minutiae about the shape of manna, ziggurats, and the like, is OR, rant, and crank. The persistent proponent of this article does himself no favors with his idiosyncratic prose and layout style. Sorry, the good Pastor Woodrow is not the Venerable Bede or even L. Ron Hubbard, and his theories are just not notable beyond the above. Delete, again. -EDM 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not even about the Woodrow's book: 98% of the article is criticism of Hilsop
"Anything more than that, including minutiae about the shape of manna, ziggurats, and the like, is OR, rant, and crank. The persistent proponent of this article does himself no favors with his idiosyncratic prose and layout style."

The Original Link (found on Hislops Two Babylons Wikipedia page) finds Hislops ideas discussed in minutiae covering these very same topics. So the original article (with false assumption in detail) is appropriate, yet its crticism, by one of its most noted detractors is not? The purpose of the 'minutiae' in the original argument is to lay out the very case that Christianitys roots are pagan. The purpose of the 'minutiae' in the rebuttal is to lay out the very case that Hislop was in error. The Woodrow article IS ABOUT HISLOPs BOOK because the very link that references him (Woodrow) distinguishes him as a critic of it. Woodrows second book is about the VERY SUBJECT of refuting Hislop.

Assuming that the value of the need to view the rebuttal is found worthy of 'Wikipedians' perusal, undoubtedly Woodrows page will ultimately be expanded and 're-written' further so as to give an even more in depth understanding of the errors of Hislop.

Just as the referenced Venerable Bede finds aspects of his life, works, struggles, and ideas ... so would any 'completed' article on Woodrow. Many Wikipedian articles, within themselves, and through links, show both PRO and CON views of the subject. The article on Woodrow is following in the established Wikipedian style and allows the reader to understand how one set of ideas may have been falsely arrived at. (and WHY)

Is it 'more appropriate' to take these very same Woodrow facts and examples and incorporate them into the body of the Hislop articles, or more reasonable to provide the link to the Woodrow page that discusses them. --M-filecastle 21:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Feel tempted to use the {{sofixit}} template. Just because an article is in a very poor and uncomprehensive state at the moment does not mean that it cannot be improved. If you don't believe me, see the following diff on MDAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Reread what you wrote. Striking previous message... I feel that this is a fair point! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable in his criticism of Hislop's The Two Babylons. Though his writing is probably not the best to actually read (lots of italics and exclamation marks), it is still notable and probably the most lucid critique of Hislop's absurdities. He has also written several other widely read books on Easter and Christmas. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. How widely is his work actually read outside the narrow confines of evangelical Protestantism? OK, he rebuts the views of Alexander Hislop, which apprear very fringe to me. How can anyone become notable by refuting a fringe viewpoint? The article makes no attempt at establishing notability. Pilatus 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasonably notable figure in a reasonably notable religious debate. We have articles on more obscure religious figures in Wikipedia. The article can always be improved. Fire Star 04:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Usual cleanup rather delete issue. Pcb21| Pete 08:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He's a minister and he's written a few books. Does this make him notable? No. →Raul654 22:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Still reads like a vanity page/flamewar cocktail. Toss it. Dottore So 22:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A pastor who withdrew his support of a 19th century crackpot religious tract. Not too notable, IMO. Pilatus 18:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • ...and has written several other books about various issues. Just clarifying this - the article doesn't really mention it. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • article has been incorporated into Linked Page

Please make comments above this notice to avoid breaking the discussion with the transcluded prior VfD.

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.

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. Essjay · Talk 00:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Woodrow

Some sort of screed/rant/POV nonsense. And I used my 700th mainspace edit for this? humblefool® 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Delete without prejudice against recreation as a legitimate encyclopedia article about this person. I'm guessing that Woodrow is notable enough to have an article about, but nothing from this first-person POV essay is salvageable, and anyone who wants to write such an article should just start over. android79 04:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. A legitimate article could probably written in this person as he has written a number of religious books. However, this article is in such poor shape that it would be better to start again. owever would vote to keep even a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as personal promotion (sentences like My original book had some valuable information in it... show to me that he's only tryin to promote the book linked at the bottom. drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Further comment: Notice how the entry is named aafer the author, yet the text is all about the theories in the book. So, as an entry "about the author" it's a very poor one. And about the theory, there's a criteria in the official wikipedia policy at WP:NOTthat states:
Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions...
which I think that fit 100% into this case. And since it goes agains official policy, it should even bee speedied. drini ☎ 06:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, rant, original research, crank. -EDM 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per the above. --Mysidia 06:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - although syncretism of Osiris, Dionysus, and Tammuz, etc. is widely discussed in the field, this article is an advert for the author, and appallingly laid out - if the book is this badly designed and formatted, I would advise people not to bother trying to read it. ~~~~ 07:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. First person. not notable. Mmmbeer 14:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic article about non-notable figure. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. May warrant a rewrite in neutral third-person language, but I don't think anything in this version is salvageable to an encyclopedic article. ESkog 21:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete autobiography is inherently Vanity/non-verifiable, even if the subject is notable. Of course, this should be without prejudice if someone writes a verifiable encyclopedic article. IMO, auto-biography should be CSD, but it isn't. Robert A West 21:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite completely Google gives about 8400 relevent hits [1], he does seem quite notable. The current article as it stands is just a pointless POV rant, but it should be rewritten with some relevent information. Cyclone49 00:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I've gone and attempted to rewrite the article from what I found on that google search, although there was very little salvagable information. If someone who is actually knowladgable about this person expands this it would be very helpful. Cyclone49 00:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article has been re-written and 'polished'.User:M-filecastle

[edit] Comments

  • Comments moved here to clear up votes

This topic should not be deleted.

The subject matter is religion.

Is Humblefool? an editor of this type of topic?

There are a series of articles that suggest that Christianity comes from pagan origins.

  • Such articles are all over the internet and on Wikipedia as well.

The debates on this topic are widespread and involve both Christians
(interdenominationally) as well as 'non'believers

Mr. Woodrow originally wrote a book - AGREEING that there are pagan roots to Christianity. It was very popular.

It (his book) took many of its assumptions from earlier works by Alexander Hislop (Wikipedia) as well as his theories regarding The Two Babylons (Wikipedia)

The Wikipedia articles on the above -2- subjects LIST Mr. Woodrow as someone who has argued AGAINST these points of view.

THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION GIVES MR WOODROWS point of view as to why he found his own earlier work, as well as the work of Alexander Hislop, to be fraudulent and in error.

Any reader of this particular subject would have great interest in understanding that Christianity, while it is accused of being from pagan origions, is NOT in fact .... and that the historical facts do not support such a claim. Mr. Woodrow, and his book REFUTE these claims.

ONE OF ITS VERY PROPONENTS (Woodrow) is now one of its critics.

What is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to inform the reader to give them insight into each side of a subject and a broader understanding of the topic.
Wikipedia already LISTS a LINK to RALPH WOODROWS nameas being a critic of the Hislop - Two Babylons theory .

The LEAST Wikipedia could offer its readers is what Mr Ralph Woodrows actual thoughts on the matter are!

Micheal@filecastle.com

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle) drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Also: the addition of this section was user's first edit: M-filecastle (talk · contribs)

Much of what is in the original articles by Alexander Hislop
(Two Babylons) are unsubstantiated and are no more than his opinion.
Apparently Alexander Hislops saving grace (here) is that he is long dead.

Mr Woodrow is a known critic (and one-time exponent)
of those very same 'opinions'.

His POV or 'opinion' is RELEVANT for that very reason.
And although some may quible with his syntax or 'phrase-ology' ...
I would argue that the very VALUE of his words are because of JUST THAT
because they ARE his words ...

When other peoples thoughts and ideas are recorded here -
is it incumbent upon the gallery to edit their thoughts ?


Were there an article on Princess Dianna's criticism of the press (here)
- would we correct her statements for grammer or use of analogy?

In an article on the Pope, (here) would we edit his remarks
so as to reflect the Protestant view?

The views expressed are those of Mr Woodrow -
any reader of such a text link would understand FROM HIS WORDS
that what they were reading WAS HIS VIEW ...

Isn't that the point ?

Michael@filecastle.com

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 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.

.