Talk:Nature's Eternal Religion

Merge
This article, in and of itself, is of little notability. However, it is notable in relation to Creativity (religion). I suggest we merge this article into Creativity (religion). Thoughts? --SCochran4 (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or Klassen's, I agree it should be merged, I'm not too fussed where. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Klassen's article should focus on his total achievements, ie, his career as a legislator, invention of the electric can opener, etc. not just Creativity- and I feel that merging this article into Klassen's would limit the focus of that article. On the other hand, Creativity is what he is best known for. --SCochran4 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. Low to non-existent notability outside of Creativity. Glaucus (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article is notable under criterion 3 of WP:NBOOK namely that it is considered by reliable source to have made a significant contribution to a political or religious movement. Minimally this includes George Michael in the peer reviewed publication Religion Compass.  To quote from the paper "In that year, he [Ben Klassen] published Nature’s Eternal Religion, which outlined his new religion – Creativity".  That said, it is an almighty pain in the bum trying to find secondary RS for the article's contents.  The longest treatment of the book we have is in the Michael paper and the focus of that paper is Klassen's critique of Christianity rather than Nature’s Eternal Religion itself so the view we get of the book is entirely through that lens.  I'd rather it wasn't merged but if it is I'd suggest merge to Creativity per Scochran4. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If no objections are raised in 12 hours, whoever gets to it first can merge the articles. --SCochran4 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)