Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The seven spirits of god

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 Speedy delete. Alabamaboy 00:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The seven spirits of god

The seven spirits of god (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Abstruse article I can't even begin to comprehend. It terminates in a webpage ad for some crank product. I'm removing a prod due to author's equally impenetrable explanation of why it should stay.  superβεεcat  00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete - Author pushing his own book so that's WP:SPAM sorted. If it's his own book then it's WP:OR. The chances are that if it's written by the author from his own book then it's most probably a WP:COPYVIO. It probably also needs a {{notenglish|Gobbledy-gook}} tag. Given its subject matter it probably also contravenes WP:SOAPBOX too. Not only that it's got indented paragraphs thereby making it virtually unreadable, they also make me suspect that it's been copied and pasted from somewhere too. ---- WebHamster 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Seven Spirits of God can be found in the Bible. However, the article as it stands looks like OR to me. Since I am not a Bible expert, I suggest that someone notify WikiProject Christianity about the article. Maybe they can judge or even fix the article better than we could. As for the book, delete the info about it until notability is secured.--Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Is an OR exegetical essay with strong POV-push, not an encyclopedia article. --Rrburke(talk) 01:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Followup I hadn't seen the spam links at the bottom of the page: should be speedied as {{db-spam}}. --Rrburke(talk) 01:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment On the subject of spamming and self-promotion, I note that the article-creator's username -- JonVS3 -- bears a rather occult similarity to the name of the book's author, Jon Straumfjord. --Rrburke(talk) 13:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Shameless self-promotion of an obscure book. --RucasHost 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and re-write. The 'seven spirits of God' are mentioned in the Bible are are thus 'notable.' Perhaps this article can be re-written from a pluralistic perspective that incorporates 'orthodox' views and relegates the current book and topic to a sub-section at best.Ryoung122 10:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This new theology based on numerology falls squarely within the core definition of original research. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's just cobblers. Nick mallory 13:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree that the topic of the seven spirits of God is noteworthy and should have an article, but practically nothing in this article contributes to that subject that can be kept and used as a basis. Such an article would need to be created from scratch, and actually having an article entitled "The seven spirits of god" already might discourage someone from starting it fresh. ◄Zahakiel► 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as WP:SPAM and WP:OR. Editor admits that he is the author using his own book as the source. Note that on his talk page he has tried to edit the article but it keeps being reverted by bots; he has pasted a revised version there, User_talk:JonVS3. Sorry to say that should probably be deleted too. It quotes other references but those too are non-notable and some don't even support the article, e.g. Bill Burns identifies the 7 spirits very differently. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and then re-create. I already notified the concerned Wikiproject about the article. I should have vote Keep per Ryoung122 reasons but I don't want that book anywhere near the article until it asserts notability for itself. --Lenticel (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; ladies and gentlemen, original research at its finest. Start from scratch. Alba 04:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - while there may be some theological justification for this topic/article's existence in Wikipedia, this article definitely centered around the book/spam. As such, it would be far better to delete until an appropriate article on the theological elements can be developed and posted. The book may be appropraite as a sub-sub-section. Tiggerjay 07:11, 19 September 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.