Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third Testament

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 both. --Coredesat 03:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Third Testament

The Third Testament (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

also:

Martinus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

From the very first paragraph, it is obvious that the purpose of this article is to push a POV, not to explain or introduce the reader to an arcane topic: "The purpose of The Third Testament is to provide the intellectual and logical basis for neighbourly love being the very highest goal in life and the way to a personal experience of the eternal Godhead." The article is so heavily-weighted toward pushing its spiritual message, I fail to see how it can be edited into something encyclopaedic. I recommend deletion, and then perhaps something more closely resembling an article can be written by someone who does not have a stake in the subject. Charles 16:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete totally unrescuable. As per nom, if this is a genuine cult someone can recreate a legitimate page on it later on, but at the moment it's pure OR and too incoherent to salvage - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to e an obfuscated offshoot of Christianity, but the principles behind it appear to be more mumbo-jumbo than anything. Evidently not a hoax (seems real), just seems kind of bogus. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; nn-volumes which lie outside the canon of mainstream thought, and even outside the noncanonical works of Christianity or any of its subsets. --Mhking 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete religioncruft. Also consider Martinus for AfD. JuJube 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, Martinus should be added to this AfD. Unfortunately, I do not know how to do that... ---Charles 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Note I have added Martinus to this AfD. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Thanks. ---Charles 03:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for its determined resistance to an NPOV stance. As far as Martinus is concerned though, the answer has to be keep as it would have to be to an NPOV Third Testament article. There are plenty of people around who believe this stuff, along with Theosophy, Scientology, Channelling, Ascended Masters... the list is endless. BTLizard 14:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not quite certain I understand what you are saying. The mere claim that "there are plenty of people who believe this stuff" does not seem enough to justify keeping an article the claims of which are unprovable and which serves only to push a POV. If Martinus can be rescued, and made into an NPOV article about a man who developed an eccentric philosophy, that is fine. As it stands, it is certainly not acceptable. ---Charles 17:35, 23 April 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.