Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Urantia Book related articles

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 merge Thought Adjuster and redirect the others. Protect all redirects. Consensus is clear that these articles do not demonstrate sufficient notability to stand alone and that the parent article is not yet of quality size to warrant spin-off articles. Two of these articles have previously survived AfD as "no consensus", one in 2006 and one in February of 2008. Repeated nominations may be a cause to oppose AfD in some circumstances, but there is not strong consensus here that this is one of them. Several participants in this debate have suggested merger, although many of those have expressed some doubt as to the quantity of material that can be merged. Thought Adjuster is mentioned as more notable within its parent topic than the others, and it has more unique sourced (albeit primary) content than the other articles. It will be clumsily dumped into the parent article for appropriate trimming by interested editors. If editors believe that it merits coverage in Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book and if that article survives its separate AfD, there is no bar to relocating material there. Editors who would like to merge sourced content from other articles can certainly do so, with administrator assistance if nececssary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Urantia Book related articles

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Universe reality
AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Thought Adjuster
Cosmology (The Urantia Book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
History and future of the world (The Urantia Book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
Thought Adjuster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
Revelation (The Urantia Book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is a group of walled off POV-forks of various articles inappropriately split from the main article The Urantia Book which itself is in desperate need of a cleanup. In the future, it may be conceivable that we would content fork the main article, but this is done in the wrong way. It isn't clear from the main article that these are the articles we should have for content forks, but what is abundantly clear is that the text in these articles is not based on secondary sources but is mainly serving as a a Spamicruftizement. My opinion is that we should either redirect all these articles to The Urantia Book or we should simply delete the lot of them and start editing the main article until the point it seems necessary that we need to content fork. The current situation, though, with single-purpose accounts guarding these articles is unacceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This AfD was started at the instigation of both a WP:ANI#Repeated article blanking at Thought Adjuster and other articles and WP:FTN#Universe reality and other The Urantia Book related articles: notice. The general consensus of those discussing the actual merits of these cases is that these articles do not belong as separate from the main article.

There clearly was not consensus that the nominator claims above. Wazronk (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Inasmuch as the people who wrote the content (such as yourself) were unhappy with the consensus of outsiders, this claim is correct. However, I have yet to see someone who has not written the content who actually looked at the substance of these group of articles say anything more than "get rid of them". Let's let this discussion play out, in any case. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: While there are different POVs about the fiction/nonfiction status of the book, we would all do well to review WP:WAF, which has applicable suggestions in any case. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and create protected redirects - obvious content forks of material which belongs, if at all, with the main article. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with above. Eusebeus (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would suggest a merge discussion. Universe reality went through an AFD and was not deleted (two people argued that article was acceptable per summary style) and then it was moved to Cosmology (The Urantia Book) and it looks like you've redirected that article already (as well as Revelation (The Urantia Book)). It looks like History and future of the world (The Urantia Book) is a sub-article of The Urantia Book. Do each of these articles advocate a different stance on the subject? If you don't care if these are redirected or deleted, I don't think AFD is the proper venue. And I'm not in favor of AFD nominations in response to revert wars. --Pixelface (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Well, the consensus on WP:FTN was to redirect these articles. However, certain angry administrators at WP:ANI disagreed. Part of the reason we're back here is because AfD is taken by the community to be a strong consensus from the outside and two different AfDs have happened on these articles. Certain editors (including myself) disagree with the AfD decisions on these articles and other editors (including the true-believers advocating for their perferred content) are using the AfD discussions inappropriately to block the redirects. AfD, for better or worse, is taken to be a good place to get consensus on how to deal with this kind of stuff. Merge discussions tend to not be as well-organized. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    There was not consensus and it's a violation of WP:DELETE to blank out articles the way you have continually attempted. I have repeatedly said I am entirely open to discussing these topics, declaring people as "true believers" just because they oppose your blanking of articles is petty ad hominem. Wazronk (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Are you denying that you are not a believer in the ideas presented in The Urantia Book? You are not a paricipant in Urantia Foundation sponsored study groups/sharing of your profound revelations you have gained from studying this work? I'm just pointing out your biases. We all have them. I simply don't think that Urantia-followers should be creating walled gardens of content and treating Wikipedia like a platform ripe for them to proselytize, tis all. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all but Thought Adjuster, which should be redirected to The Urantia Book. Looking at these articles, I don't think they merit a Summary Style exemption at this time. Get the main article in line with policies, and then fork off as needed. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (or merge or redirect). The Urantia Book is clearly a fringe topic, be it fringe religion, fringe science, or something in between. These satellite articles give undue prominence to the topic and therefore break our neutrality POV policy by their very existence. I don't quite understand why SA says they are POV-forks, but I agree that they form a walled garden. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    I think an article entitled Cosmology (The Urantia Book) clearly qualifies as a POV-fork of cosmology. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Then I agree. I didn't think about it that way, I was thinking about whether it was a POV-fork of the Urantia Book article. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Wording was indeed ambiguous. I changed it. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree that citing a wikipedia essay about "walled gardens" factors into deletion. Policy is what should factor into deletion. On top of that, what keeps being missed, is there has been no "wall" at all to prevent or in any way discourage edits. The people who claim there is a "walled garden" consistently haven't even tried to work on the articles they are discussing or tried to work with the editors who have a history at the articles. As for the suggestion that it is a POV fork of cosmology, that is no more true than it is for any other of the many non-science cosmology articles like Hindu cosmology, Mormon cosmology, etc. Wazronk (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, but this is how Wikipedia works. My opinion was based on a policy (NPOV) and a guideline (FRINGE), the latter being based on an ArbCom ruling. Wikipedia is consensus based, and the purpose of policies, guidelines and essays is to make it more efficient to come to the result that will prevail. I see no chance that these articles will survive in the long run. They only survived until now because of lack of attention from mainstream editors. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    I wouldn't consider Cosmology (The Urantia Book) a POV fork of cosmology any more than I would Hindu cosmology, Buddhist cosmology, Jain cosmology or Norse cosmology. I suppose Cosmology (The Urantia Book) is a poor name and could be renamed something like Urantia cosmology. Cosmology (The Urantia Book) began as a description of "universe reality" contained in The Urantia Book — not as a POV fork of cosmology. The cosmology article links to all kinds of different cosmological models. --Pixelface (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Those are content forks of cosmology. If they were as difficult to source as the cosmology of this peculiar sect of New Age Urantia Book believers, those articles would be POV-forks. As it is, there are plenty of external, independent, secondary sources that describe those cosmologies in great detail making them strictly content forks and not POV-forks. POV-forks are defined as places where a POV can be expounded upon in isolation from the other related issues as a way of circumventing WP:WEIGHT, for example. Not too long ago, The Urantia Book content was removed from our article on cosmology. That a new article entitled Cosmology (The Urantia Book) is being argued for looks very much like a POV-fork to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    That's because you're only seeing it from your limited view of having only entered into the topic just in recent days. The "cosmology" of the Urantia book has been discussed many times in the past as being possibly spun off. Read the AfD on the talk page. I renamed the "universe reality" article to "cosmology" only the other day to have it become this WP:SS spinout that had been discussed in the past, not at all as anything to do with the science cosmology article or a POV fork. As to whether that is fitting or not as a stand alone article, that's why it's a mess here to discuss, these are four separate articles and the merits of each one has different weights and should be independently assessed. Cosmology as described by the Urantia book could be defensible but I would also understand if it would tilt to not being supported. On the other hand, Thought Adjuster has many secondary sources backing up its relevance as a stand alone topic, and should be a speedy keep. I'd go through the articles one by one but, again, what a mess to have it all done like this. You won't even be able to tease out what is the consensus for each article with some people voting for some and others deciding they see reason to keep others. Wazronk (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Well, the "science" cosmology article used to have a section on the Urantia book included in the cosmology#Esoteric cosmology section. It was removed for WP:WEIGHT concerns. Now I see an entire article was written on the subject. You might want to read about what a WP:POVFORK is before declaring that I don't know what I'm talking about. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not quite sure the Cosmology (The Urantia Book) article is a POV fork of the cosmology article, because the creator of that article, Richiar, has never edited the cosmology article (under that username at least). I can't say why that editor created the article Cosmology (The Urantia Book), but it did list several references I'm sure could be used to write a neutral article on the topic. It may be easier to evaluate the content if all four of those articles were merged into the article The Urantia Book though. --Pixelface (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    As they say, YMMV. In any case, I have looked at two of the secondary sources listed there. Not only was the cosmology of the Urantia Book not really dealt with in earnest, the small amounts that were mentioned were not included in the article. It is clear to me that the author included these references as a fail-safe to confuse commentators on AfD into thinking that there was good sourcing when there actually isn't. What's more, I see no reason why we shouldn't work on fixing the main article first and maybe seeing if the cosmology of the Urantia Book is really so unweildy as to justify a separate article. As it is, I see no justification for forking other than to present more of the ideas from The Urantia Book on Wikipedia: something Wikipedia is clearly not! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or break up into separate AfDs at a minimum. This strangely formed AfD is from an editor who refuses to talk on the article talk pages to have his concerns addressed, and instead has been edit warring to blank out these pages for several days. The reasons listed for AfD are "walled garden", which is from an essay he or she found, not any policy, and "POV fork", which is not at all what any of these articles are. Meanwhile there hasn't been the slightest word from the nominator on what his or her POV concerns actually are, only page blanking. He or she is saying that people have been " advocating for their perferred content". Not true, people have been advocating for discussing his or her concerns on the talk pages and not blanking articles. I totally disagree with how these four different pages are all lumped together and rushed into AfD in this situation where the nominator has been so antagonistic on a topic and hasn't made more than the briefest effort to engage with the editors who know the topics sources. The nominator hasn't evidently read the talk archives, read the sources, hasn't read the book that is the topic of the main article, or even apparently read the main article itself, The Urantia Book, which shows clearly two of the above articles branching from subtopics according to WP:SS despite his claim that somehow they didn't. Wazronk (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Um, I have been on Talk:The Urantia Book. I don't know why you say I refuse to talk on the talkpages. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Um, still no specifics of what your POV concerns are. Um, that was a post from you only just today after the behavior of yours of blanking out pages had to be reported to admins via the incidents board. Wazronk (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Listen, if you can't figure out what might specific POV issues might happen with committed believers in The Urantia Book dictating content about The Urantia Book, then it is unclear to me as to where we can even begin to have a conversation. You are welcome to be a part of the discussion. You are not welcome to own content on the encyclopedia and you are certainly encouraged to avoid single-purpose advocacy. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    If you don't communicate your specific concerns, people won't know them. I happen to know a broad spectrum of sources related to the topic, and since it's an esoteric topic, I've found I might as well assist on it. My "advocacy", as you would see if you ever go through the archives, is for strict adherence to wikipedia policy, to me this should be especially true for POV-sensitive issues like religious ones. You don't even realize that the reason I have even come to watch the article is because of the repeated attempts to strip out criticisms by those with believer POVs. I wrote nearly all the criticism material into the article about science flaws and plagiarism and fought repeatedly against multiple believer-editors to keep it present. But that does not mean that I begrudge them their POV or that neutral, plain explanations about the material not be presented. Wazronk (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have been exceedingly clear about my specific concerns in multiple venues. It may be that your association with the subject has clouded your judgment. Maybe you are just attached to content you wrote. I'm going to assume good faith and assume that you simply disagree for reasons I cannot ascertain. In any case, the fact is that there does not need to be this group of articles: we should fix the main article first. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    No, you have not been exceedingly clear. You've cited "walled garden" as an argument, which is a meaningless essay for WP:DELETE purposes, and isn't true anyhow in this situation because there is no "wall" and all along you've had full liberty to modify and improve on the articles in question. You haven't been interested in editing the pages though or in discussing their content with editors, only on blanking them. You've cited that there's "POV fork", while refusing the repeated requests to actually give what the POV short-comings are in the articles. You should "assume good faith" and assume that I "simply disagree" for precisely the reasons I've been repeatedly telling you. Wazronk (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Wazronk, let me preface by adopting full sympathy for your stance. I too am an SPA and have faced these AFDs, I attempted to point out edit wars and invalid arguments, and in my zeal I even got blocked for 3 days. Now, in the shoes of a UB reader (I read the first few pages once-- no, I mean after the TOC), what would I do? Well, first I'd read the handwriting on the wall here and be glad the redirects will spare your original content. Second I'd build from the main article, because the severe content problems of the linked articles are not ready for summary style. Maybe an agreement on ignoring the article length limits would be good while the content problems are solved. And what are they specifically? I personally don't want to take the time for a full list. A couple examples should suffice (unless you really do have problems spotting POV). First, see here for an example of an NPOV attempt, and see the Flat Earth section mentioned there, if only because it's a classic minority view and a well-written example of balance. For more specifics: history and future as alleged "on a typical planet" can be axed completely for notability and being off-topic. "Agondonter" is a word which I wish I didn't know existed; because a nonce word, it might stand with the brief definition "a survivor of a sin-isolated world, in the afterlife", but the rest is POV cruft (full of the passive voice despised on WP) and not definition. The lead of "revelation" should tell me what UB thinks "revelation" is (generally a personage communicating, with the UB being an exception) instead of starting with the UB and not telling us about the personages for awhile.
    Now Wazronk, I will now reveal to you and this audience that I am in fact a Zebulun Mentor, i.e., a class of gibborian apprentices to omniscience (incidentally, not mentioned by name in the UB) appointed to assist Urantians by providing programs of demanding psychical-physical challenges. I hereby appeal to your inner will to covenant with me for your nefeshical upliftment. If you assent, you will be scheduled to be subjected to a uniquely tailored program of will-strengtheners. During the waiting periods, you may perceive apparent contradictions from this Wikipedia account or the Homo sapiens associated with it, such as my ostensibly POV edits, my ignoring of all pleas, and particularly my flippancy: know these are all for your well-being. The offer stands on the table. Attributing the offer paragraph to sarcasm would be one (common) indication of refusal and would suggest the necessity for other programs than that of Zebulun. I have already intuited your reply and will continue accordingly. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    Dude, I have absolutely nothing to do with Urantia religious people much less any organization. Seeing as I delete link spam from Urantia Foundation (eg, here), it makes no sense this idea that I'm associated with them, as you said on the other AfD, and as SA has likewise dreamed up. Some people like yourself have looked through my wikipedia edit history and noticed my edits are on this topic, making me an SPA. They have jumped to an assumption and a whole storyline in their head without clicking on my edits to actually see how I've edited. As I've already pointed out above, in fact the reason I've watched the main article so long and become a long time contributor is because of how often criticism would get stripped out and believer POV would be subtly inserted. I happen to have read the book and put my familiarity with the topic to use in becoming a contributor to the article, then over time have read many secondary sources to improve it against wikipedia policies. Knowing the topic, I understand how the side articles have come about, which are the subject of this AfD. I understand how they have serious shortcomings (except Thought Adjuster, which whatever shortcomings it has are minor, and the article should definitely be a speedy keep), but I also understand how they could be seen as potentially valid extensions and improved. I hope people will find fair, NPOV presentation of this not-well-known and unusual topic at the main article at least and be informed to think whatever they would like to think about it, skeptics most definitely included (again, as I've already pointed out, I wrote virtually all the criticisms in the article and have fought many battles to keep them there). Please do consider to not be such an idiotic-sounding WP:DICK next time. Wazronk (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close and renominate separately on the following grounds: 1. One of the articles blanket-nominated already survived an AFD challenge less than a month ago and articles must not be renominated after such a short interval, and 2. as noted above the topics are separate enough that they should be nominated separately. This is a procedural "vote" as I have no opinion one way or the other on the viability of the individual articles although I will vote Speedy keep on the Thought Adjuster article as that is the one that already went through AFD 3 weeks ago. 23skidoo (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    I am finding it very hard to assume good faith about this comment. The survival of the one article was on grounds totally unrelated to the points being brought up here. Are you really going to make me take this through a needlessly procedural WP:DRV for their input? For godsakes, the damn thing was closed "no consensus". Hardly a resounding reason to prevent future AfDs and there are plenty of other instances where "no consensus" AfDs were relisted rather than closed. And now we have a slew of other issues to address. So please stop Wikilawyering and deal with the substance of the issue. Why is it that you can't so much as get a discussion going on Wikipedia without people making ridiculous protestations about procedure like the one above? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    It is because people have misconceptions about how Wikipedia works, and when they find out it takes some time to adjust to reality. (Sorry, sometimes I can't resist answering rhetorical questions.) --Hans Adler (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    23skidoo, did you even look at these AfDs? Minimal participation. One closed as "no consensus" and one as "defaults to keep", whatever that means. The total number of "keep" votes in these two AfDs by people who are not Urantia SPAs was 1 "weak keep". Taking this as precedent just because the closing admins weren't more careful is counter to Wikipedia's consensus principle. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • These topics have no independent notability outside the Urantia universe, and " Cosmology", "Revelation" etc (except possibly "Thought Adjuster") are unlikely to be search terms for users searching for the book; hence they are not reasonable redirect candidates.
  • The main article The Urantia Book, despite its apparent length has too little independent and reliably sourced content for spin-offs to be justified under summary style. A large part of the article is simply sourced to the The Urantia Foundation and is an in-universe description, rather than a critical/encyclopedic appraisal based on secondary sources.
Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Secondary sources establishing notability for Thought Adjuster are especially easy to come by, for example:
    • Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery by Martin Gardner
    • New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities by J. Gordon Melton and Christopher Partridge
    • Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality by Bob Larson
    • Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements by Dr. H. Wayne House
    And the Gardner book was entirely written as an evaluation and critical response to the "revelation" claim. The cosmology topic has been seen as a notable aspect of the book by Gardner and others but to my knowledge on the other hand there aren't as many secondary sources directly concerned with it in-depth. Wazronk (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    These are all excellent sources to be used for writing The Urantia Book article. However, none of these sources were really used to write the Thought Adjuster article, and they've been of limited use in the main article as well. One thing at a time. Get The Urantia Book article up to snuff, then we can think about forking. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    They are all sources that establish the notability of the Thought Adjuster topic: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." The majority of sources recognize it as a major concept, and that's why it's a separate article, like how Thetan is a separate article from Scientology and inner light is a separate article for Quakerism, etc etc. This again why I think it's incorrect to have 4 separate articles lumped together as they have been, there is not equivalence between all the articles in applying the different arguments about whether they should be kept or deleted. Wazronk (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Notability is not the issue up for discussion here. The issue is proper forking procedures and appropriate sourcing in light of WP:SPA-writing and spamicruftisement policies. Trying to make comparisons to major religious movements is also problematic. The Urantia Book is itself a notable article, but spinning-off other articles needs to be done carefully in light of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. That was not done in this case. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Notability was cited as a concern above by Abecedare, which is what I was responding to, and the notability issue is even from WP:FRINGE: "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." There are many such independent WP:RS and WP:V secondary sources that establish notability for the topic as a stand-alone article. "Proper forking procedures"? Huh, talk about wikilawyering. You hardly know this topic, just this morning you were declaring that there were absolutely no secondary sources, which is entirely false. Don't be surprised when people who know the topic better point out sources that led to an article such as Thought Adjuster being created, and yes, it was built up with WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, and WP:NPOV all in mind. Wazronk (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You can't delete and merge unless an admin also merges the edit histories into the merge target. It's much easier to just leave a redirect if any content is merged. --Pixelface (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • You are right! So even though IMO there is no content reason for creating redirects, we may need to have them for legal GFDL issues. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect all to The Urantia Book per WP:CFORK. Any useable independently sourced content can be merged into the parent article. If the parent article becomes so chock-full of quality, well-sourced content in the future that spinoffs are necessary, they could be recreated at that point, but we're nowhere near there yet. MastCell Talk 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or perhaps at the outside a slight merge of some and redirect, but only as a poor second. These articles are basically in-universe treatments of subjects which have no provable independent significance, they are inappropriate forks per WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect & Protect Nom seems to describe the situation pretty well. In my short time here, this is the best example of a walled garden that I've seen. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 00:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect We should have been able to do this without afd, but from the above contents it seems to be necessary. The alternative, and a good one, would be deletion. Not worth separate articles. DGG (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect - material that is independently sourced can be merged to The Urantia Book but this walled-garden appears highly promotional, especially with the scarcity of reliable independent coverage. Shell babelfish 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect nothing there worth a seperate article - all useful content to be merged as per DGG and Shell Kinney. --Fredrick day 13:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect all and protect. Nothing worthy of separate articles here, obvious risk of editors overriding the redirect.Kww (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect all and protect until such a time as the need for separate article is demonstrated according to multiple independent reliable sources. 66.193.210.90 (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close Per skiddoo. Afd'ing four article at once, together is absurd. I would vote with delete for three of them anyway- if this was done properly. Thought adjuster appears to have enough sources. It is also a bad faith nomination, in my opinion to afd an article that just survived one 3 weeks ago! Hohohahaha (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean 2 years and 3 weeks ago. Look again. Mangojuicetalk 17:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close this blanket nomination and re-list as four separate AFDs. Articles have quite different characteristics. Agree with 23skiddoo above. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Cosmology (The Urantia Book), History and future of the world (The Urantia Book), and Revelation (The Urantia Book), as WP:OR essays about Urantia. Smerge Thought Adjuster to Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book, or if that is deleted, keep it and stubify. The concept of Thought Adjuster is central to this whole Urantia thing, apparently; it's discussed in some independent sources that I found on Google Books. The content there has major WP:OR problems, though... but the topic seems to be notable. Mangojuicetalk 17:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect all and protect per excellent 100% agreed arguments of Abecedare and their followup by ScienceApologist, and my excellent arguments at Guy's related AFD nomination. It may well be factual to say "The book teaches 1 through 1000", but it not only leads to WP:N problems, it also runs afoul of WP:UNDUE because there is no majority-view commentary on other human knowledge about 1 through 1000 anywhere. None of these articles is any different from another in failing these tests. Move any reliably sourced content that cannot be cast as "The book teaches" into main article-- but then there isn't any, is there? John J. Bulten (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Add this most pertinent text from WP:WAF: "Editors are cautioned to not immediately create such spinout articles that lack real-world coverage, even if such articles exist for a similar fictional work. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article on the [] work first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the work and [] elements of the work." John J. Bulten (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect per the above arguments. There is always the possibility in the future to create sub-articles on this topic once more established secondary sources are found and the Urantia Book increases in notability. GizzaDiscuss © 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge (if there's anything which is sourced and not "in-Universe") and create protected redirects. I've delayed weighing in after I saw this pointed to from WP:ANI, and that seems the rational move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment insertion

I don't know where to put this, a consesus looks like it is being collected, but I just today was informed of this dialogue, and invited to post comments, so this is what I am doing:

Pixelface wrote:

"I'm not quite sure the Cosmology (The Urantia Book) article is a POV fork of the cosmology article, because the creator of that article, Richiar, has never edited the cosmology article (under that username at least). I can't say why that editor created the article Cosmology (The Urantia Book), but it did list several references I'm sure could be used to write a neutral article on the topic. It may be easier to evaluate the content if all four of those articles were merged into the article The Urantia Book though."

I wasn't aware of the cosmology article until it was pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago.

I started the Revelation article because the Urantia Book claims to be a revelation. It seemed to be necessary to say what that means. I thought the Urantia Book article was too long and too ackward, so I started a subarticle.

I started the Universe reality article because one of the main topics of the Urantia Book is about the nature of reality (including God). Again, it wasn't in the main article, and it seems that most of the concepts in the Urantia Book are related to the ideas it has of universe reality.

I have reviewed the pov fork policy or guideline--the Revelation article and Universe reality article were not (or not intended) as pov forks, but as subarticles for the convenience of communicating some of the major content of the Urantia Book. As I have reviewed the Universe reality article further,there seems to be some ackward language that should be modified. It leaves the impression of point of view promoting in some of the syntax, but for the most part the article is simply descriptive summarization of content in the Urantia Book. The articles Revelation and Universe reality were intended by myself to be summarizations.

About the Urantia Book article: the topics it presents are major topics of the book. I have always said that I thought the grammar and syntax of the article were ackward, and sounded like point of view Urantia Book promotions. Wazronk and I have discussed this issue in the past. I would propose more simply understood language, as in the Seabird article.

There are so many topics that have come up here, I can't address them all in one message.--Richiar (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete and create protected redirects Dlabtot (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (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.