Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


 * 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 not delete. As to whether to merge, I am not sure there's consensus. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with closing this discussion with the result of "not delete". With 4 votes for deletion, 2 for keep, 6 for merge, 3 for keep or merge and 1 for delete or merge, this should've been listed as no consensus. The immediate result — retaining the article — is the same, but this may be important to note later on, as I imagine the discussion over this article isn't through yet.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Having been part of the LDS Wikiproject for a year now, I have to say that this is one of the more unusual Mormonism-related articles that I've seen. As it stands, "Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" seems like a non-sensical topic... there is very little in terms of doctrine relating to animals specifically, and none that would really be considered notable. If encyclopedic content were to appear concerning this subject, it would be better inserted as a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as it's doubtful that it would merit its own article. In any case, this one needs to go.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 07:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. Five pillars Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory.
 * It may seem to you to be a non-sensical topic, but as the article's references state, it's a topic that is included in the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism. Wikipedia should not be any less of an encyclopaedia than that encyclopaedia.  The article requires citations for much of its content, but what citations there are indicate that this is, indeed, a subject that has been covered in multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of their subjects, and thus notable.  This is a stub article that cites sources and that has clear scope for expansion.  Deletion is not the way to fix the parts of the article that don't yet have sources.  Keep. Uncle G 08:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the fact that it's a topic that's been covered in a Mormonism-specific encyclopedia doesn't strike me as the most persuasive of arguments, since an encyclopedia specific to any topic will naturally be able to devote more space to more esoteric topics than a general-interest one will. An encyclopedia of competitive sport, for example, would more than likely deem football clubs notable which would fail our guidelines, while an encyclopedia on the Pacific islands would be able to devote considerable space to members of local government in Samoa who would probably get short shrift here as well. BigHaz 09:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a very persuasive argument against the assertion that the topic is "non-sensical". Please read what I actually wrote.  The argument about notability is based upon the multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of their subjects, both cited in the article and locatable elsewhere. Uncle G 09:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * At no point was I criticising your argument about notability, I was merely remarking on the inherent problems of relying on more specific encyclopedias than what we appear to be creating here. BigHaz 11:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did think that it was an argument about notability. Uncle G 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I may have titled it badly, but the argument on your talk page was in fact about the "relevance" of the point, as is clearly stated there. BigHaz 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply While I still haven't made up my mind about the need for a seperate article or inclusion in a list of unique theology, I do think that coverage in another encyclopedia is relevant. "What Wikipedia is not" clearly says one advantage of wikipedia is that it need not be limited by printing/arbitrary limits on which topics to cover. Wikipedia is not meant to be only a general purpose encyclopedia but also include everything that would be in specialized encylopedias as well. some quotes below (emphasis added) -- Trödel 16:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with a more general page dealing with the concept of soul/purpose in life in the LDS theology. Zargulon 08:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to one of the more general Mormonism pages. Too much cruft in the form of excessively many separate articles on a given topic is not in the WP:NPOV spirit.  There's probably a 20-volume "Encyclopedia of ball-bearing polishing technology" somewhere but Wikipedia shouldn't try to duplicate its contents. Phr (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The WP:NPOV discussion of undue weight is about minority and majority points of view on the same topic, not about the weight that should be given to different topics. The relevant style guide on whether there should be breakout articles on sub-topics is Summary style.  If you actually read what is cited by this article, you'll see that there's a lot that can be said on this subject, clearly enough for the topic to be broken out on its own.  As I said above, the article is a stub with clear scope for expansion.  Please actually read the articles being discussed and their sources. Uncle G 09:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did read the article. I'm not persuaded that "scope of expansion" is a good reason to keep a stub around if there's a logical place to merge it until a separate article is needed.  Better to split subtopics out of the parent article as they grow too large, than to spew stubs all over the place in hope of expansion.  Stubs are to hold a place for an article when there's noplace else to put the info. Also, undue weight in my view applies to the enclopedia as a whole, not just to individual articles.  That's the reason WP:CRUFT is bad.  It's fine to have an article about some movie of medium importance.  It's also ok (or anyway it's a fait accompli) to have a bunch of separate articles about characters in an ultra-notable movie like Star Wars.  It's undue weight to have dozens of separate articles about the different characters in the minor movie, especially stub articles where nobody has bothered to research whatever they thought the article was supposed to be about.  This is more of the same.  Phr (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Stubs are to hold a place for an article when there's noplace else to put the info. &mdash; which is the situation here. Also, undue weight in my view applies to the enclopedia as a whole &mdash; You are still mis-applying a principle related to the presentation of multiple points of view to something completely unrelated. I did read the article. &mdash;  I also encouraged you to read the sources.  That you don't see that there's scope for expansion indicates that you haven't seen how much more is written on this topic in the sources than is at present in the article.  For the third time: This is a stub article. Uncle G 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Stubs are to hold a place for an article when there's noplace else to put the info. In this instance the info can go in one of the more general Mormonism articles.  Scope for expansion I never said there's no scope for expansion; I agree that there is scope for expansion.  I explained why I think the existence of scope for expansion is not a good reason to keep a stub.  It's like saying we should keep an article about some some unknown musician or author because she "might become famous".  Let her become famous first, then we can add an article.  Expand the info about in some other article first, then split it off to a separate article once the parent article starts becoming unbalanced or overlarge. Phr (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is not like that. That is another misapplication of a principle to something that is unrelated.  Authors who "might become famous" have nothing written about them now.  This article, on the other hand, has scope for expansion from material that currently exists. Uncle G 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I did read what's cited, and it's very, very little to work with. As BigHaz mentioned, being mentioned in an interest-specific encyclopedic doesn't do anything to establish that it's of sufficient importance to merit an article here. From personal experience, after five years in the LDS Church, I don't ever recall hearing or reading any discourses on animals in Mormon theology. Thorough citations on an unsignificant topic don't make it more important. It was a good intention, and it may find a home on an LDS-specific wiki. If consensus is in favor of deletion or a redirect, perhaps it could be userfied to UncleG so he can use it elsewhere.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are, in effect, applying the "I've never heard of it." criterion to this article. That is an exceedingly poor criterion to apply to decide whether an article should be deleted, and one that is generally rejected. If you want a notability criterion, consider the primary one from WP:WEB, WP:CORP, et al.: A subject should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the subject.  This topic clearly is.  It even cites a few of those published works.  Uncle G 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One of many criteria applied, and while "who's heard what" isn't always a good determinant of a subject's importance, it isn't always bad either. In any case, you miss my point — the intention was to illustrate how rarely the topic is brought up. If you can find any discourse, spoken or written, by a General Authority of the LDS Church (for outsiders, that is more or less what could be considered "official") focusing solely on animals in the same manner in which this article treats them, please, post it up. Problem is, I doubt it exists. This is patched together from a scattering of brief statements drawn from different sources, and even then, the article is filled with supposition. Whittle it down, and you're left with material that may be appropriate in a larger doctrinal article, but not meriting its own. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any authoritative LDS Church statement mentioning the significance of its animal theology.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely bogus constraint upon sources. Per our Neutral point of view policy, we are not restricted solely to sources that support one view of a subject. Uncle G 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: The majority of the article remains uncited. There are a myriad of unsubstantiated claims, and it's general premise is one that can't even be found from the religion's cannonical works. --Hetar 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't delete articles because some parts of them haven't been sourced. We delete articles when they are unverifiable.  This article cites several independent non-trivial sources that discuss the subject of the article.  Fixing the article is simply a matter of bringing the article into line with the sources, which involves cleanup, not deletion.  Uncle G 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article cites ONE source. Remove all the uncited information, and you are left with two sentences, not much of an article. And we do delete articles when they discuss something that can't even be backed up by the most authoritative sources for a subject. --Hetar 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article cites one source and lists four more treatments of the subject in a "further reading" section, which can be used as sources when expanding or correcting the article. Asserting that this article "cannot be backed up" is silly, given what is right there in the article. Uncle G 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or possibly merge. This is undeniably cruft. Just zis Guy you know? 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge; is there a general page on animal souls that this could be merged at? Smerdis of Tlön 19:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge This article needs work, to be sure. But I think the information is interesting enough, particularly because it differs from the views of some other forms of Christianity that hold that animals have no souls at all. This difference should be noted somewhere, be it in this article, in another article on Mormonism (for example, it says that they believe that animals have immortal spirits so the article on whichever afterlife kingdom they're believed to go to, Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial, might be the right place), or in an article on the views of animals in general as Smerdis suggested. One benefit of keeping this article is that in merging, it would be difficult to decide where to merge to and the info might be broken up into many pieces (some in the articles on Mormon beliefs in before life, some in after life, some elsewhere, etc.) instead of being in one comprehensive article. --Icarus (Hi!) 20:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. As a former member of the church for a good 20 years I can say that this topic is one that very rarely is ever mentioned in the church itself and there really isn't any way to expand upon this article, and is not important enough to merit its own entry.  I'd be just as happy to see it deleted but if the majority wants to see it stay I'd rather it was merged into some other article, as suggested above. Arkyan 21:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * there really isn't any way to expand upon this article &mdash; There are four more potential sources for use in expansion right there at the bottom of the article. I'm certain that they are not the only such further sources to be found, moreover.  Uncle G 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge This is not a trivial article or obscure point on LDS theology. The role the animal kingdom plays in relation to humanity (humans are animals, by the way) is an important theological question with perhaps more questions than answers, but a valid question nonetheless. LDS are but one Christian church whose leaders have evidently commented on the significance of animal life, but animals are important to many more than just LDS, including non-Christian perspectives. These should be included also. When article expansion is initiated, the discussion merits careful navigation to preserve NPOV simply because I suspect there are a multitude of voices on the issue. The broader Christian view needs to be navigated carefully (including LDS), but I believe it can be done. Interestingly enough, CS Lewis devotes an entire essay in The Problem of Pain (ISBN: 0060652969) titled "Animal Pain" that parses the moral and physical intracacies of animal life, especially in their relation to humanity. Clearly, animals are important in his fiction as well and take on roles of sacrifice, redemption, deceit, suffering, valor (Reepicheep), and transcendance (Lewis has remarked in Mere Christianity something to the effect..."Isn't that how the higher thing always raises the lower?...how our pets seem human, and in the end that's what they almost become," to paraphrase from memory. Thus, an article dealing with just the LDS view is, I think, a little too narrow in the broader scope of the issue, albeit very, very interesting...it merely needs expansion, context, and additional references, not deletion! I don't think we should abandon valid information, regardless if it appears to be an unfrequently traveled religious issue. There are thousands of current Wiki articles that any random schmuck could point a finger at and say "too trivial" or "no import whatsoever." Look, frankly I don't perceive this information to be in error or obscure at all. It's an important moral question. Yes, the recent edits are far from transcendant, so clearly it needs to be expanded or merged (however, given the contentious climate at the main LDS Church article, I doubt that a proposed merge would be adopted easily). In the meantime, let's get this thing off the delete list and get it in better shape. Deleting this would be a shame.--Piewalker 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Typical Mormon doctrines" section of Mormonism is a pretty obvious place for this. Even if the article is kept, it should be summarized and linked there.  I still suggest merging. Phr (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. Unless this can be expanded in any significant way, a merge is the more appropriate course of action. Peyna 03:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, merge, merge. Current title makes it sound like animals are among the parishioners. bd2412  T 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment – I agree that the title is misleading. Perhaps "Animals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" would be better. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into a LDS article, an animal article, or both.  Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  00:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hey, I got some vandalism related this AfD! About time I had someone other than Carbine blanking my page.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 04:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now &mdash; It is clearly a stub, but it is a topic that is fairly unique among other Christian religions. If people seem to be unable to expand it enough to make a decent-sized article, then we can merge it with some other article (although I can't think of a candidate at the moment). wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge &mdash; This is about all the information that is available on this subject. It should be merged with another article about religious views on animals. Val42 03:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's WP:OR to extrapolate this information from existing texts for no good reason. What's next, Food in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Trees in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Rocks in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? or People with Hebrew-sounding-yet-meaningless names in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? wikipediatrix 18:21, 27 July 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.