Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Benjamín Urrutia

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 kept. mikka (t) 23:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamín Urrutia

This article should be deleted, because it doesn't even explain well why Urrutia is important or which academic titles he holds or where he studied. It also doesn't give any details about his life. This person's not even well-known in Ecuador, like some politicians who are not even mentioned on Wikipedia. The article should at least be expanded and explain why this person is important. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedily Keep. Article quality is not a sufficient reason for deletion. --goethean ॐ 20:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not article quality that is questioned; it is person's notability, which is not demonstrated. mikka (t) 18:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hey, it's not just the quality. The whole content is useless. There are lots of Ecuadorian scholars out there who are not even mentioned on Wikipedia, and Urrutia, he's not even famous. About 594 Google results. That's nothing. The reason I put this article on the deletion list is not just because of the quality. It's also the content. The quality just shows how content-less this article is. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but not speedily. There's enough published work for me to think he's at least borderline notable. Additionally, this encyclopedia records people who are notable, not neccessarily famous; it's a key distinction. --Scimitar ^parley 16:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I've done a bit more research, and listened to Mikka- I'm not convinced this guy is notable anymore.--Scimitar ^parley 19:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. published author => notable enough. --DrTorstenHenning 17:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• not decided yet. Smacks like a hoax or thoroughly vandalized. Guys, is your vote based on knowledge or on your opinion on the article superficial appearance? mikka (t) 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  For example, you say: "Published author". "Interview with Master Yoda" does it really look like a work of Biblical scholar? "Slanted Glory" (variant: "Slanted Gloria") - no google hits. Quick google search shows the name as a translator, not as a notable scholar. A list of journal articles is not basis for notability. mikka (t) 18:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a book on my dresser, The Logia of Yeshua, co-authored by Benjamin Urrutia. The "Interview with Yoda" looks like the result of a mistake made by an editor based on this website (which seems to show that Benjamin Urrutia is still writing — in the review of The Lost Religion of Jesus on that page, he calls Jesus "Yeshua". --goethean ॐ 18:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

When you search for "Benjamín Urrutia" in Spanish, Google shows only about 13 results. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

When you search Google Ecuador or restrict the search to Ecuador, it shows zero (0) results 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Besides, we don't know who this guy is. We just have a list of publications. Anyone can publish books. That's irrelevant. We don't know what he did in Ecuador. We don't know where he studied. We don't know which university he attended. We know nothing, at least from the article. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Just because he studied at Brigham Young University, that doesn't make him more relevant. There are a lot of Ecuadorian intellectuals who've studied in the U.S. This article here is irrelevant. There are lots of people who have published books about Jesus or theology or Christianity. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[1] "Benjamin Urrutia is a teacher, linguist, and scholar who has been writing and publishing about the Bible for a quarter of a century. He was born in Guayaquil, Ecuador, and educated at Brigham Young University. His numerous articles on biblical subjects have appeared in American Anthropologist, Dialogue, Egyptological Studies, and Mythlore, among others. Benjamin Urrutia lives in Chicago." (from 'About the translators' p. 67) --goethean ॐ 18:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I saw that one before, but that doesn't show that he's an important person.2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Mythlore: Mythlore is a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and the genres of myth and fantasy. Beginning in 2005 Mythlore will appear once per year as a double issue in late Summer or early Fall. [2] 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Latter-day Science Fiction is a collection of parables. From what I see, Urrutia is a Mormon story teller. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[3] THE LIGHT OF EDEN. By Benjamin Urrutia. Of primordial importance in the contemporary novelist J. R. R. Tolkien's saga of Arda is the story of the Eden-like land of Aman, with its white and golden Trees of Light, whose destruction by the enemy Morgoth plunged that land into darkness. The story bears a slight resemblance to that of Genesis, Chapter 3, which also tells of a land of Paradise, which was lost because of the intrigue of an enemy, the Serpent. Two trees, the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, also appear in the Genesis account, but otherwise the similarity is small indeed: there is no hint that these trees produced light, or that they were injured in any way at the Fall. Surprisingly, a much closer parallel to the Tolkienian narrative can be found in ancient Mexican mythology-the story of Tamoanchán.

To me he looks like a Mormon Harry Potter fan, nothing else. He's irrelevant here on Wikipedia. On American Anthropologist he wrote about J.R.R. Tolkien. Big deal. He's not an anthropologist. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is what a reader says about Urrutia's article on Egyptological Studies [4]:

Nibley does give some useful citations in his discussion of the Opening of the Mouth on pages 106-109 which Urrutia cites. The whole value of Urrutia's article is in Nibley's discussion and sources. I agree that Urrutia's article has no value outside of the referenced material in Nibley.

So Urrutia's not an egyptologist either. He's just a story teller. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

He co-authored a book with Guy Davenport, a significant literary figure. In that book — which I have read — Urrutia and Davenport select and translate the sayings of Jesus from a variety of canonical and non-canonical sources. In itself, that establishes notability in my mind. --goethean ॐ 20:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So he is a translator, not author. Big deal. mikka (t) 20:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep intersting. Trollderella 21:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment What I said above about Urrutia, that he's not famous, that's just an understatement, because, quite frankly, Urrutia's a nobody in Ecuador. Who on earth is that man? He's a nobody. Just a translator and Harry Potter fan. Hey, religion's a business too. To me, this page is even spam, a kind of advertisement for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or something. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The single (and very thin) book co-authored/edited/translated with Guy Davenport is not really enough to make him notable. As for the other publications, American Anthropologist is an important journal, but all his contributions there (available through JSTOR) are very brief notes or comments of less than a page on articles by other people. On the whole, he doesn't appear notable enough. However, whether he is notable in Ecuador is in my opinion completely irrelevant; a lot of people are more notable abroad than in their home countries. Uppland 06:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 20:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• weak delete Looks like an obscure hack-writer. --Ghirlandajo 14:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Goethean. See also my comments here Tomer ^TALK 23:18, August 29, 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.