Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thought Adjuster

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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 22:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thought Adjuster

• This seems too much like proselytizing for it to be in Wikipedia. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book entry suffices MLA 15:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - not proselytizing, but I agree it would seem that way because NPOV is not fully achieved. This is a philosophical concept that is not entirely unknown, just the word symbol for it. It may be that this part could be edited to improve objectivity. I do think the article needs expansion if it is to stay, and it should become NPOV for the conceptual idea as well as linked to the other articles in Wikipedia that discuss the similar/parallel philosophical/relgious concepts. Hanely 16:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per MLA. POV fork. Urantiacruft. -- Krash (Talk) 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Krash, You have a history of voting for deleting articles. What is this word "Urantiacruft"? Why should the article be deleted? Urantiacruft is a meaningless word and doesn't exist anywhere. The editor who wants to write the article deserves an educated, reasonable, answer and vote. Hanely 20:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Hanely, You're observant of my actions, but that has little relevance right now. "Urantiacruft" is a portmanteau combining the words "Urantia" and "cruft". I'm sorry if that was not clear. As stated above, I feel that the article should be deleted because a) I agree with User:MLA, b) it appears to be a content fork, and c) I think the article is little more than cruft related to Urantia. -- Krash (Talk) 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Krash, Thanks! Yes, I can see how you perceived it to be a fork. But the history of the article talk page shows that editors need to either split the article or make a series, this is currently in process and ongoing. I believe it was the editor's attempt at getting that started (same with epochal from that article). Cruft? I followed your link and skimmed; well - you're entitled to your opinion, of course, and it is worth considering, and should go without saying, but it's uninformed IMHO. Esoteric is more accurate. IMHO. (I also saw fancruft, and agree only by the word-symbol for a concept that is actually reasonably known among spiritual philosopical and religious thought. I think it should be kept until the editor has opportunity to fine tune it, though I would understand if you insist it be fine tuned before posted. Keep Hanely 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How much time does the editor need to fine tune the article and what tunings are in the works? That said, I'm not really sure if fine tuning or even major rewrites would remedy the real problems. Everything from about the second paragraph on is badly POV, written in an unencyclopedic, soapbox tone. Without any secondary sources, the article qualifies as proselytizing original research. Cutting all the problems would leave little more than a glossery term per User:MLA. -- Krash (Talk) 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Krash, It is changed more now and still going. I vote to remove request for deletion Hanely 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The term "thought adjuster" is important enough to merit its own article, and developments / improvements should continue to make it a better article. My thoughts on the objections listed so far:

• "proselytizing" / NPOV -- I agree POV isn't up to wikipedia standards. I've made some additional improvements. Just having an article on a religious term doesn't mean the intention is to prosyletize, the article is meant to explain a rather central concept to the The Urantia Book. Lack of neutrality in and of itself is being stated as the main reason to delete the article, but wikipedia policy directly addresses this as not usually being reason enough. I don't believe this is one of those exceptional cases where shortcomings with NPOV are enough to merit the drastic action of deletion. Good faith efforts should be made by editors to improve the NPOV and address concerns.
• "cruft" -- More correctly, it's beta. Articles rarely spring forth from Zeus' forehead as an Athena of perfect prose, that's never been a reason to delete an article. Krash, if you have more of a "release early, release often" Cathedral-vs-the-Bazaar mindset toward software, this is best seen as an "early" release of text on the subject.
• "content fork" -- A "content fork" is mainly when an accidental or unintentional duplication of an article occurs, which isn't the case here. This is the natural growth of a topic beyond the space considerations of the parent article.
• "POV fork" -- Perhaps because the POV has had a prosyletizing feel it was thought to be an attempt to put that POV in this article? I'm guessing... It'd be helpful to clarify the "POV fork" argument, because while I see the NPOV shortcomings, I don't see how this is a fork.
• "Without any secondary sources, the article qualifies as proselytizing original research." -- Could you cite support for this argument from wikipedia policy? Setting aside "proselytizing" as a separate issue, I know the policies well and your basic argument was a new one to me. The wikipedia policy page No original research doesn't say a "secondary source" is needed in order for an article to not be "original research". The "original research" policy is that articles themselves can't be original -- this article clearly cites that its reference is The Urantia Book and it isn't inventing the term "thought adjuster" or the explanations about it. As this book is in the public domain, direct links to an online edition of the book were even possible, going above and beyond what most articles are able to attain regarding verifiability and adhering to "no original research".
• "glossary suffices" -- The entry in the glossary is a short two sentences, and links to this article, exactly because in no way can the glossary by itself adequately get across the topic. It requires treatment in an article.

In many ways this can be seen as analogous to articles on Scientology terms like Thetan and Operating Thetan, just to cite a couple of examples out of hundreds on wikipedia regarding NRMs. I'm not a Scientologist (or a "Urantian" for that matter, though I know the topic well), but I recognize that movements such as these have beliefs that readers may be curious to read more about and wikipedia is a place where those topics are appropriate. I would agree with MLA on nearly all the terms in the glossary, that they don't merit articles on their own, but of the handful that do, Thought Adjuster is very much on the list. My "keep" vote is as someone who has read the book. Wazronk 20:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wazronk - good points, all of them. More accurate than my understanding of forks, etc. Thanks Wazronk. Hanely 16:31, 6 March 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.