Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Theology


 * 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   delete. There is sufficient consensus here that this article consists primarily of original research. Shereth 18:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Computer Theology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article have been submitted to deletion on fr.wikipedia September 1st and deleted September 7th (cf. fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Théologie des ordinateurs). The discussion have showe the goal of this article is to promote the book Computer Theology: Intelligent Design of the World Wide Web. This article author have also created the article Bertrand du Castel to enhance promotion. There is a great autopromotion suspiction. Furthermore, the references of the article aren't considered trustable. Dereckson (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete. The only thing books listed in the bibliography seem to have in common is that they approach religion from a computer science (or a subset) perspective, or the opposite. The article would likely fail WP:SYNTH if it was a decent synthesis, instead it is too confused to qualify: one sentence, "Computer Theology" is about "the role of religion in computer networks", the next it's "the use of religion to understand the evolution of computer networks", and then a bunch of unrelated ideas. That the article bears the same name as a book recently published and was created by a single purpose account (User:Computertheology) is another indication that this article should not be included. Equendil Talk 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer has already be given on many of these points at Talk:Computer_Theology. Here are comments on the other points: [1](Deletion of the French article): The French translation, admittedly weak, was a courtesy to the French audience. Immediately after the creation of the article the French Wikipedia comment pages started showing insults instead of attempts at making the translation better, and therefore the effort was abandoned. Next to the insults on the French version where comments in other parts of the text where the authors complained about the "anglophone" world ignoring the "francophone" world. Therein may lay a reason. 2](Furthermore, the references of the article aren't considered trustable): Considered by whom? On which basis? [3](One sentence, "Computer Theology" is about "the role of religion in computer networks", the next it's "the use of religion to understand the evolution of computer networks"). While the first citation is in the text, the second citation is made up and not in the text of the article. Regards. Computertheology (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology.
 * The sentence, which I admitedly botched, is "Computer Theology uses religious studies (a perspective external to religion) and theology (a perspective internal to religion) to understand the evolution of computer networks in regards to that of human societies and to formalize their constituting concepts." which doesn't quite evoke the same idea to me as the study of "the role of religion in computer networks" but ok, this is downright bizarre anyway. Hey, I am just a lowly software engineer who somehow has never heard of this "branch of computer science".
 * Anyway, that doesn't explain the bulleted themes and selected bibliography. To quote just the first bullet: "Illustration of theological concepts using computer science methodology" which I assume refer to Knuth's illuminated Bible texts, and doesn't seem to be about computer networks (but I haven't read the book, entertain me).
 * Now there's the possibility that the article was meant to be broader in scope than just what the introduction sentence suggests, but as I hinted to, this would likely constitute (if content was significant) original research through synthesis of published material and Wikipedia is not the place for that.
 * Or there's another possibility, that the article was just meant to exist and be called the same as a book recently published and source material was improvised to give the article a semblance of legitimacy. This may explain why for instance, an essay ("Computer Theology: A New Era for Theology") that discusses the use of computer technology for Theological purposes is a reference here, despite bearing no relation to the study of "the role of religion in computer networks".
 * Which is it ? Just *what* is this article supposed to be about ? Equendil Talk 23:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The terms "downright bizarre" are downright insulting and breach the number one principle of Wikipedia, i.e. good faith. The terms "lowly software engineer" and "I haven't read the book" are also derogatory. If you decide to read Knuth, you may want to start with Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About, where he answers your question directly. Page 19 you'll find this question and answer (the book is a series of lectures follows by question and answer session): "Q: What influence might computers have on future developments in theology? A: The simple answer is that Web-based resources have recently appeared that make it much easier now to approach the vast theological literature." Then a little further in the answer: "Could advances in computer technology actually influence the manner of divine revelation?" Here, Knuth speaks of exactly the same subject as Deane William Ferm. Please read the book. If you are a software engineer, you'll see that it speaks directly to you. It is also worth reading our answer to Ningauble below, because it also bears on the subject of how the concepts of accessing information and using it merge in the Computer Theology perspective.
 * The same subject as Deane William Ferm ? That reference is another essay, entirely unrelated to computer science or computer networks, the term "computer theology" only appears as a parenthesis "(megatrend theology? computer theology? multinational theology?)", and is evidently not defined as it is merely a fleeting suggestion of a name. I reiterate my question: what is the article supposed to be about exactly ? Equendil Talk 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article of Deane William Ferm articulates that theologies are culturally determined (a proposition which is certainly both debatable and debated, but that doesn't bear on our discussion right now), and illustrates this point in particular regarding eastern cultures. Then the article raises the question of modifications of modern culture, such as the obvious expansion afforded in particular by computer networks, but also other aspects of recent expansions. Deane William Ferm did purposely not develop how such modifications map with new theologies. However Computer Theology does precisely that. Somehow you're not getting that from the article: is there anything we could do to make that clearer to you? Any suggestion? Or do still desire more explanation of this point? Computertheology (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology
 * I was asking, as before, what the article on Wikipedia we are discussing here is supposed to be about, not Ferm's essay. Besides I'm sorry, but there is nothing about computer networks in that essay. I am not very good at assuming good faith when confronted to seemingly promotional material in the first place, but I definitively cannot assume good faith when bad faith is demonstrated. Equendil Talk 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The essay dates back to 1984, a time where networks were merely emerging in academic and some industrial use. The point of Ferm's article is that theologies are culturally defined. The author thought about computer theology as a cultural phenomenon, but didn't specify the culture itself; today, it is impossible to consider the computer culture outside of the network culture. We've already discussed the promotional accusation, but let's repeat it here. There is promotion of the knowledge represented in the article, but that's what Wikipedia is for. For example, look at the Golem article. If you read the Golem legend, there is no mention of automata in it. However, automata are a central feature of the article. It is just that in the Prague gettho at the inception of the legend automata were not a common cultural reference. But automata would become a reference to the Golem, a metaphor akin to that found in Computer Theology. Certainly you will not propose the Golem article for deletion. To conclude that particular point, it's proper to mention here that you'll find this exact reference to the Golem in Anne Foerst' book. We'd like to thank you in a kind of backhanded way since you force a very nice discussion of issues. Nevertheless, we definitely prefer the civil tone. It appears that we are all volunteers here, all interested in propagation (should we say "promotion"?) of knowledge. Computertheology (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology.


 * Delete. Non-notable as a "branch of Computer Science and Theology." The article is primarily original research by synthesis of loosely related ideas from primary sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "non-notable" argument is not substantiated, so it's hard to debate. In contrast, the "original research" argument is based on the term "loosely". When scholarly articles and books dating back to more than 20 years ago mention explicitly "computer theology" in their title or/and text on exactly the same subject, what's original and loose about that? Computertheology (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology
 * Are you refering to W. Paul Jones' essay : "Computer Theology: A New Era for Theology" ? "How can computers be used, not only in theological education, but in the service of theology itself?" ? *How* is that the same subject ? Equendil Talk 23:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not referring only to that article, but we can talk about this one as you mention it. A key sentence in the article is "Such a role correlates roughly with the functions of a computer - remembering, condensing, interconnecting" (p. 46). You may be familiar with Merlin Donald's work A Mind So Rare, which includes external representations (p. 321) into the "theoretic" part of modern culture (p. 260), which he also denotes as "External symbolic universe." With "Remembering, condensing, interconnecting," Paul Jones includes theology in Merlin Donald's model. That merges religion and networks (and storage therein) and the article can be considered the foundation of Computer Theology.
 * Comment on improving the article: The principle objection to the article (non-notable synthesis) is due to the lack of a citation for the lead section, in which it is asserted that there is an integrated field of study involving the four aspects mentioned. The perceived defect may be cured by citing multiple independent reliable secondary sources that treat all of these aspects together as an established field. This is what is meant by notability of the field. In particular, what is meant by secondary sources is not those that propose, endorse, or posit such an integrated approach, but those that treat it objectively as an established field. Positing and arguing the thesis is what is meant by original research, no matter how good the argument. On the other hand, one could write an article on a book about this thesis, but only if the book itself is notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally articulating what you consider the issue. It is extremely frustrating to see posts which have no explanation other than a reference to a Wikipedia article (WP:SYN) that actually doesn't contain a description that makes the article "original" research. Now either your position is correct, and it should be added to the Wikipedia article, or it is incorrect, and the issue is moot. Both would be fine, as they would represent a verifiable reference; what's not fine is using a non-documented feature to seek deletion of an article. Now, to speak specifically of the issue you mention, we think it is indeed correctly reflecting the current status of the article. While the references provided all combine some of the elements of the Computer Theology list, we do not know of a reference which would encompass the four at once. Certainly there is not one of the references that are in the article right now which covers at once the four items of the list. We think we know the field quite well and we have not seen the four being covered at once in articles and/or presentations so far. It's not clear to us why this makes the article "original" still, but if there is a definition of "original" that says that all the elements of a list need to be covered by a single reference, it would be interesting to have a pointer to it, because it would make, for example, the article on archaeology "original". If you look at archeology, you'll find the following: "The goals of archaeology vary, and there is debate as to what its aims and responsibilities are". (There is no citation). Would you propose deletion of the archeology article? Thank you again for taking the pain of sifting through the hubris so that we get to the core of the matter. It looks like the process is useful but it is sure seems painful for everyone involved. Computertheology (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology


 * Note: Please stop removing the AfD notice from the article. By Wikipedia policy the notice must remain until this discussion is closed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The first Wikipedia policy is good faith. The present discussion doesn't belong to a "deletion" page, but rather to the article discussion page. Actually, we are moving it there as it may be of interest to readers of the article at large. There is no reason for this deletion page to be. We hope the discussion (which is now becoming interesting) will continue on the talk page of the article. Particularly welcome would be suggestions to improve the article.Computertheology (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology
 * This deletion process cannot be interrupted until an administrator decides to close it. That process is not up for discussion here and removing the notice again will only get you blocked from editing. Equendil Talk 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was not clear to us that this was a bona fide process. We'll assume (albeit admittedly with some befuzzlment) good faith.Computertheology (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology.


 * Appears to be original research via synthesis. Delete per WP:SYN. -- The Anome (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See the answer above to the specific comments on the subject by Ningauble.


 * Delete with userification as an option. I'll volunteer to work with this author to improve the article with an eye towards putting it back into mainspace at some point. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not now? How do you propose to improve the article? Regards. Computertheology (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology


 * There are only two accounts involved in this discussion, that we recognize (even when we disagree) have spent the time to evaluate the article in some depth (as opposed to issuing statements without explanations): Equendil and Ningauble. Actually, Ningauble is a single purpose account created August 20, 2008, that is dedicated to deletions Special:Contributions/Ningauble. No history of contribution, extremely short Wikipedia life, and then just deletions? Computertheology (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology
 * Comment. Please try to assume good faith. See note on your talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2008 (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.