Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism


 * 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. — Kurykh  00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There are thousands of academic conferences every year, and the vast majority of them will fail WP:NOTABILITY. This conference is no exception. I'm sure that the papers presented at this conference and later published (though in an improved form) in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism are useful sources, but their arguments should be included in articles like Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Philo, Apophatic theology, etc., not in an article devoted to the conference. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Your arguments are right - in a general encyclopedia, details of individual academic conferences do not belong, making it more like a directory. Sure, these academics would probably be useful for sourcing articles on these philosophy topics, but unless it explains through non-trivial, multiple reliable sources independent of the subject(s) - i.e. these academics, I can't see why this should stay.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it was suggested to move around the contents to other articles such as Neoplatonism, but that would inconvenience users who were looking specifically for the "First International Conference..". Perhaps a move to International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism since it is not clear whether there is a need for creating an article per conference. You can find other conference articles that exist on Wikipedia. —Tokek 11:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Tokek. { Ben S. Nelson } 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But neither of you have illustrated that the conference is notable. Why do you think WP users are going to be searching for this topic? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The conference is noted in the book "The Christaquarians?: A Sociology of Christians in the New Age" by Daren Kemp (University of London). By all appearances, this thesis is not a work that arose directly and exclusively from the conference.
 * It is fairly uncontroversial to say that WP users will search for the general topic of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. I admit that it is doubtful that many would go out to search for information on the conference directly. Nevertheless, I don't doubt that those interested in the broader topic would be interested in information on the latest arguments and findings of the conferences, if it were linked to from the N&G wiki. { Ben S. Nelson } 17:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

LoveMonkey 11:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC) LoveMonkey 12:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC) LoveMonkey 16:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC) LoveMonkey 12:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC) LoveMonkey 13:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is the second time that the article has been up for deletion because somebody has decided that an article about an obscure book and topic is not needed. Wikipedia is about politic and this article is being a target of that politic. It appears that people like to delete articles if they don't like what they say and or if the article can not be gamed into being a lie. I rewrote this article with Bryan Morton who is working on becoming at Professor in the philosophy department at University of Indiana. I consulted the main editor at the Professor Ed Moore at the internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . I wrote the article because this part of what Plotinus stated and all of the conferenceS. The conference and this article about very specific things that people can not get anywhere else. I rewrote this entire user Professor Bryan Morton. Professor Morton has left wikipedia considering the deletion of article nominations and now the conflict before with quoting sources that is now being attacked as "copyright" violations well. I am beginning to understand that wikipedia not about the truth or about knowing what you are talking about. It is about having a gang to protect you and your articles. I can not blame Zeusnoos (professor and member of the neoplatonic society) in leaving now. Nor can I blame Professor Morton. This getting tired and very very old.
 * Comment As I had stated before, this article is also to introduce the many scholars (Wallid, Allen, Dillon, Armstrong) and committee (international neoplatonic society) to wikipedia. So that their profiles might also be created. It would be better if people read the works of the middle or later platonic scholars and posted the articles then engage in disruptive behavior. I have more much much more to learn then I could ever have to teach.
 * If these scholars are notable, they should have their own articles. Armstrong and Dillon almost certainly qualify. I think WP needs much more robust coverage of ancient philosophy and religion, but the appropriate place for this material is articles like Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Nous, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see your conduct matching your words. I have already created this article and about 3 other on neoplatonism-Henosis for example. I created the bio for John M. Dillon. I also created the bio page for A. H. Armstrong. I also created the Metaxy article. You however have been doing nothing but deleting articles. So your point is actually pointless. Also as more and more policies get piled on to combat abuses, the policies then became (like you are doing right now with the article) tools to be disruptive and abuse. How can an article covering the multiple topics of relation between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism not be encyclopedic? Also you just above asked for more articles but then want to delete an article that you are asking for more articles on.
 * LoveMonkey, you seem to be personalizing this discussion, which is unfortunate. It's good that you've created those articles, but that doesn't alter my initial point--that this conference doesn't meet the notability guidelines, and that the useful material here should be put into other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Your deleted an article I worked on and wrote. You are then pulling me before the Soviet or Committee and stated that an article about a large gathering of Philosophy Professors discussing the impact that a major archeological (the Nag Hammadi) discover had on their historical understanding of their respective fields within the entire field of Greek Philosophy, that this is not encyclopedia worthy and that the founder of wikipedia thinks that the book and conference are a hoax and that I, in the name of scholars, am generating a hoax. Gee are you actually conscious of any of this or are you just so out of touch that you lack conscience. I find this process and your insistence that no matter what critieria that the article is going to be deleted to be upsetting to say the least. And the fact that you ask me to not be human and to act like a robot and not express my disappointment shows just how duplicitous wikipedia really is. You are showing that the policies are really duplicity. Say one thing but mean another. Now let me guess you have another duplicitous policy on how people are supposed to act too. Constantly saying one thing but meaning another. Pilling on mountains and mountains of policies and regulations. Well back to you what Dostoevsky said to you and committee/Soviet.
 * Delete. I agree that, in the absence of specific notability clearly established via secondary sources, one-shot academic conferences do not need WP articles. (I can find no evidence that any subsequent conferences have been held under the title "International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism.") Ongoing series of conferences, such as the International Congress on Medieval Studies, are a different matter; but even so, many of these are discussed in the articles on their sponsoring bodies rather than in articles of their own. Deor 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy. The article establishes that the topic of the conference is notable, but not that the conference itself has independent notability. Despite claiming that the conference was "a turning point in the discussion on the subject of Neoplatonism", etc., the article doesn't cite a single independent source about the conference saying that it was important. The current section on Outcomes of the conference is particularly poor; the first paragraph is self-evident, the second is either a summary of the conference's conclusions or an OR interpretation, and paragraphs 3 to 5 don't seem to be about the conference at all. Meanwhile, the section on Later Conferences and Studies doesn't show that these had any connection with the conference that most of the article is about. So I say userfy the article to give User:LoveMonkey time to add citations of independent sources discussing the conference, such as reviews of the book Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. The article can be moved back into namespace if these are found. If such sources can't be found, I would say that merging a brief summary into Neoplatonism and Gnosticism is the best solution. EALacey 12:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There were two conferences noted it states so in the article.
 * I see no mention of a second International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism in the article, nor can I find references to one elsewhere. Deor 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Professor John D. Turner of the University of Nebraska has lead additional conferences covering topics and materials relating to Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Presentations from seminars that took place between 1993 and 1998 are published in the book Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts Symposium Series (Society of Biblical Literature). These works covered topics such as the following:
 * Comment. Under the section ==Later Conferences and Studies==


 * The controversy over the "Anonymous Commentary on Plato's Parmenides". Kevin Corrigan University of Saskatchewan argues for a pre-Plotinian and pre-Porphryrian origin for the text.
 * A comparison of ideas between the Sethian gnostic text Marsanes and Iamblichus (John F. Finamore, University of Iowa)
 * An analysis of matter (as either a first principle, or as derived from a prior) in Valentinian gnosticism, Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism (Einer Thomassen, University of Bergen)
 * Apophasis and apophatic theology in gnosticism and neoplatonism (John Peter Kenney, St. Michael's College, Vermont)

Professor John D Turner considers Plotinus, Porphyry, and Amelius all to be Neoplatonic philosophers who were critical of Gnosticism. Professor Turner is quoted "In the late third century, Sethianism also became estranged from orthodox (Neo)Platonism under the impetus of attacks and refutations from the circle of Plotinus and other Neoplatonists which were just as effective as those of the Christian heresiologists. At this time, whatever Sethianism was left became increasingly fragmented into various derivative and other sectarian gnostic groups such as the Archontics, Audians, Borborites, Phibionites and others, some of which survived into the Middle Ages."

Professor John D Turner also states that the Allogenes group text was Sethian gnostic and that the Neoplatonic circle of Plotinus knew this text and that this was what effected Plotinus to not only be critical of the gnostics but to also refine his own understanding of Plato's works such as Timaeus.

Current studies within the organizations such as International Society of Neoplatonic Studies and Ancient Philosophy Society have been continuing research on the common ground and interaction between the two philosophical and religious movements of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Works on this topic have been published by SUNY, University Press of the South,Universite Laval, and Society of Biblical Literature. LoveMonkey 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you considered it necessary to transclude an entire section of the article here, but the fact that there have been other seminars and symposia on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism does not negate the fact that this has been the only one called International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Deor 19:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can not help you with your articulation. Since the first conference some of it's participants have held another conference. If they are that specific or not in their naming convention that is nothing but a distraction. You can see that other conferences where held.

The point consistently that this is an article about one conference and book. I have showed by posting what is repeatedly being denied, that people are not reading what they are seeking to remove. LoveMonkey 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - the article makes many assertions which we are asked to accept without sources. Some of the information in this article could be useful in other articles, and that's where it belongs.  An article about a single academic conference in 1984, without sources, could be a hoax for all we know.  LoveMonkey's defense of the article, which includes such insults as "It appears that people like to delete articles if they don't like what they say and or if the article can not be gamed into being a lie" fails to build confidence that this article is valid at all.--Jimbo Wales 16:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, (To aid the closing admin, the following is a Delete opinion -Richard) This is really disproportionate weight. There are zero secondary sources, and the article is a detailed report on a number of otherwise non-notable -- in the WP sense-- individual papers, supported by footnotes explaining the basis concepts of neoplatonism. Agreed, the coverage of scholarly topics in wikipedia is way way under strength, but this is not helped by such articles.  The main argument above, is the importance of the overall subject. True, and the effort should rather have been devoted to individual subject articles.
 * I note in particular that there are probably several hundred conference papers a year--about equal to the number of individual scholarly articles, There have been proposals to write an article about each of them. There have been attempts to insert lists of the tables of content of individual issues of periodicals in articles about the periodical--almost as absurd.
 * No one can say I do not support articles on academic content, and academic biographies. I've said what I could at AfD for any   that are above trivial significance, and strongly defended those for all reasonably important people when attacked by those who consider almost no scholar important. I've strongly defended the articles on Petrarch and his circle that have been here and are here. I wish we had ten times as many in WP as we now do.  We should have articles on every major subject discussed at this conference. But not the conference.
 * Jimbo shouldn't have said it might be a hoax. The proceedings are published. But this shows the feeling that will be very reasonably aroused in even people such as he who do understand the importance of these articles.
 * Good causes are spoiled by excess. DGG (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

LoveMonkey 19:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)  Get the book open the book and read if it is a hoax. Why would the University of Nebraska be posting a professor's work online if it where a hoax. I mean change the name of the article to the field of Neoplatonic and Gnosticism relationship and studies but man to delete this article and have JIMBO jump in. I mean WOW.....JIMBO stated that all of the scholars works are a hoax. WOW! I mean what now is scholarly? What now is encyclopedic? WOW Here is one of the papers from the book. Professor John Turner's presentation from the First conference and book LoveMonkey 17:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC) I even had Professor Morton confirm it when we rewrote the original article and this one. Here is Armstrong editions for sale on Amazon LoveMonkey 17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC) LoveMonkey 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe wikipedia should be more about scholarly information and less about fighting and or building consensus. Maybe it should be about books and scholarly information and sources. Rather then listening to ill informed people and then acting upon it. Maybe it should be about information. Rather then browbeating and intimidation. My article has an entire sets of scholars that it has sourced. You claim it doesn't even have secondary sourcing.
 * Comment Well I disagree that there are no secondary sources (look at the John Turner section alone you can read his article from the University of Nebraska). A mean the book is many source each part a different scholar and view point. Also this articles have reprinted elsewhere as the Dr Turner articles shows. Also he is one of the most famous translators of the Nag Hammadi. The article is about multiple conferences and I would like to know if either JIMBO or DGG knows out of the thousands of conferences each year how many how many are about the specific topic of the relationship between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism? I would have kept the article name Neoplatonism and Gnosticism but it got nominated for deletion under that title too. That was why it got changed to the title it is now. One that I did not choose. Also I would prefer to create other articles about the specific topics but that gets either edit warred out (see Talk:Plotinus) or JIMBO and the wiki staff look the other way. Here's the book right on Amazon to buy.
 * comment I mean this has gotten out of hand. I posted the introduction to the edition of Plotinus' Enneads Against the Gnostics which cause this whole entire philosophy field of study on the subject A H Armstrongs you know the one you study in college. And it got deleted and called trash. It is now a hoax? A H Armstrongs introduction to Plotinus' Against the Gnostics is a hoax? I mean Zeusnoos told Goethan that I posted it word for word.
 * Slight Merge to Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Per arguments above against having an article on each and every academic conference.  This conference should be mentioned in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism.  If this conference is deemed to be a seminal event in the study of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, then it might deserve a section unto itself in that article.  Otherwise, it's far better to have articles on the individual contributors and any important topics.  It seems out of keeping with Wikipedia's misson to have articles on conferences with listings of papers presented at those events.  Wikipedia is not a directory. --Richard 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you Richard for your support. I originally had the article written as part of the Neoplatonism and Gnosticism article. But it was the subject of debate for deletion and that is why I looked until I found someone who supported an opposing view to my own to rewrite this and the Neoplatonism article with it. If you go to Professor Morton's user page you can see the work we did creating the article.Since there is very little if any information on the two subjects and even less on academic conferences I created the article to gave a solid source the repeated wars I was going through on the Plotinus article. Which I still can't bring myself to rewrite because it was such and ugly mess. I did not understand wiki then as much as I do now. I would have done things allot different then.
 * Well, the first comment by User:Bmorton3 in that talk page thread is 'I should "well know" one superceded text from 1984? Do you know how many texts on philosophy came out in 1984? Since 1984? Even if we are just talking about Gnosticism, there have been 100s of texts since then.' This comment casts considerable doubt on the notability on the book Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and by extension on the notability of the conference. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

by attacking and trying to justify deleting it by nonsensical reasons. To remove what it decided that it did not like this is just for show. The aricle has been rewritten because it was not source enough-even though its is actually a group of highly respected sources. The article was rewritten because it did not supposedly fit the subject of wiki or an encyclodedia. Though wikipedia has articles that are not about scholarly subject matter. Though encyclopedias do use everyone of these articles and scholars to source their own articles. I even got someone from the Neoplatonic Society to work on this article. I even got a Professor of Philosophy to work on this article with me. The subject matter is obscure and hard to understand. I made sure that the article was rewritten to even address this. At this point though no one is listening. Because wikipedia is not about being an encyclopedia or I would not have had to create this article in the first place so actually add content on the subject matter to wikipedia because people were writting and adding their own material to Plotinus and they did not have a like of Neoplatonic sources to justifiy what they where doing. I found a hole I filled it. Now why am out of sync with Jimbo? Well one the environment at wikipedia as I have stated. I bet it's actually going to get worse. Specifically for me.(smile) But I am not the only one complaining, nor is it obvious that my behaviour or conduct is a direct response to how I have been treated. LoveMonkey 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. No it doesn't. I argued with Bryan over this very point in that the importance of the conference was that it was done inlight of the understanding from the text of the Nag Hammadi this was the first conference of that kind that I can find. If of all those hundreds you are talking about you can name "others" I missed please included them, this is what I first asked Zeusnoos during the first deletion nomination. Also again you are focusing on the first part of the article and acting as if there is not any other or further conferences mentioned in the article. Can you name me some more conferences if so how many?I could only find two. If I had found more I would have added without hesitation. This is not a qualifer to remove the source and clarification that the conferences brought to the subject matter. But let me please clarify. As I stated to JIMBO. Wikipedia is not about scholarly or the truth or important source information. Wikipedia is a click, a popularity contest. This conference was the first of it's kind. It was very important to actually have on paper what all the most important scholars in this field of study had to say aftert the intergrated the Nag Hammadi into their specialities. If for any then to have been the first of it's kind. As the title states. If you have not noticied this article about a bunch of papers written by scholars in the field of philosophy from all around the world. A single one little article. About history and information. It is being attacked by a system that justifies it's behaviour (which is consistently retailitory)
 * Keep but rename as International Conferences on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism and expand to include other conferences that have been held.--MONGO 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, do you think there's something particularly notable about this conference (or conferences, if it can be shown that there have been more), or do you think that all academic conferences are notable? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that all conferences that are noted by a secondary source can and should qualify as "notable". One has been provided above. { Ben S. Nelson } 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the source say? Is it non-trivial coverage of the conference itself, or just a citation of the resulting publication? Please note that the notability guidelines specify non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject; just one is not usually considered enough. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability may not be readily apparent or even easily referenced, but I see the article as causing no harm, but do suggest an expansion. It is a relatively obscure conference that might be interesting to those who are only just beginning to get involved in studying these philosophies.--MONGO 05:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * comment In partial answer to Akhilleus, I'd be prepared to say that most established series of academic conferences are important; in this case, as the first of a series that has not yet been continued, I can see starting a modest article. I think in general that individual conference meetings are not notable, though I can think of exceptions--I know one in biology and one in librarianship--and that this is an absurd expansion, comparable to writing articles about individual issues of periodicals. DGG (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. I think maybe the way to go is an article similar to American Philological Association. Along with the Archaeological Institute of America, the APA holds an annual convention which is of tremendous importance for academic classicists; as well as being a forum for the presentation of research it's where a lot of initial interviews for university and college positions are conducted. That conference doesn't have its own article, but it's mentioned in American Philological Association.
 * I can easily envision an article on the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, with a section on the annual conference . I'm still not sure that there was more than one International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The seminars led by Turner that are referred to in the "Later Conferences and Studies" article section were held under the auspices of the Society of Biblical Literature, not the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies. The only relationship between them and the conference that gives this article its title is their subject matter. This still looks like a one-shot conference, and I can't see how it merits an article. Calling it "the first of a series that has not yet been continued" (as DGG did), when there has been no successor in 24 years, seems rather a stretch. Deor 21:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was a one-time occurrence I have trouble seeing why we should have an article on it. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

LoveMonkey 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Please for a moment understand just how complicated this all is. Here is a case in point about what this article does and functions as. Before the Nag Hammadi librabry was discovered no one knew for sure what Plotinus was referring to or addressing in his tract against the gnostic. One point why is because there was validate from the gnostics themselves text that showed how much of any of their works was actually related to Plato. Turner addressed that indeed with the help of the Nag Hammadi text (of which he is a translator) he showed at the conference that the gnostics actually used Plato's cosmology in their their works not in an enemy depicting what they said but what they actually stated in their own works and words. Another point was did Plotinus distinguish between the early Christian community and the early gnostic community. A H Armstrong was exposed to this argument at this conference (which I noted in the article) and this is what he addressed in the edition of the Enneads in his introduction that he released after the conference. What he stated is the very core of what keeps getting attacked by people who claim it is POV or OR or a hoax or trash or not true. Even though the International Society of Neoplatonism member Zeusnoos stated that what I posted was word for word what Armstrong stated. Why can what Armstrong stated not be used and or posted on wikipedia? Why can not what the conference stated about the rather unethical conduct of the gnostics and their distortion of work of Hellenistic philosophy (like Dillon and Armstrong very plainly pointed out in the contents of this article) be posted or used on wikipedia? I mean look at what Dillon stated about the distortion of the gnostics and their tacts that the Neoplatonist crticiszed them for. The gnostics misuse and misappropriation of the works of Plato and the academy. John M Dillon wrote an entire article about this nefarious way the gnostics arrived their use of pleroma. Here is a perfect example of what set of unethical conduct that Plotinus was pointing out in his artcle. I did this edit today. The article Ani-kutani Here is an article about the culture and history of the Cherokee Indian being hijacked here on wikipedia by a new age editor who is distorting what Professor Mooney stated and is accepted by the Cherokee. This article distorts the religious history of the Cherokee and the states that the true Cherokee are a secret society in Missouri and that the Cherokee on the reservation are not the real Cherokee. I reported this article and no one did anything. I then went and posted what Mooney stated and now another editor has went back and distorted Mooney to try and validate what this evil conspiracy to play on the ignorance of people on the internet to stumble onto this article. This is a very crystal clear example of what I am talking about and has upset me about wikipedia and why again I have been disappointed about how well wikipedia works. LoveMonkey 02:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC) LoveMonkey 01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC) LoveMonkey 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well originally I wanted to create an entry about Plonitus actually stated in his Enneads about the gnostics on his bio page. This caused an edit war on this BIO page. But I also wanted to created an article about the ongoing research into the subject of Neoplatonism. With the case of the conference the member from the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies- Zeusnoos noted that SUNY for example and the other sources at the end of the article where multiple sources that republished these papers in their college text book and peer review journals. Here is what the Professor noted and is part of the article already. Current studies within the organizations such as International Society of Neoplatonic Studies and Ancient Philosophy Society have been continuing research on the common ground and interaction between the two philosophical and religious movements of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Works on this topic have been published by SUNY, University Press of the South,Universite Laval, and Society of Biblical Literature. It appears that on going conferences on the subject of the relationship between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism needs coverage but how to properly handle it's inclusion into wikipedia has been the issue all along. I can say that I would never have created the article if I could have just added into Plotinus' article what A H Armstrong stated that Plotinus said as well as what Plotinus did say. But posters like User:Goethean User:Dan (recently) refuse to accept what has been put in print and published. Also no one can seem to reign them in so I am left to fighting them in this article which rather then getting deleted because what I posted is a hoax or invalid they are attacking on a technicality. Please go back and look at the nightmare of the Plotinus article. I tried to stop another user of OR and did not know I was out of line. But when I was told I apologized. But it did not stop that the user was posting OR under the BIO of Plotinus. Nor did the admins that worked on the article protect what this set of conferences and at least two of it's scholars validated which WHAT PLOTINUS actually stated about the gnostic in his tract named Those who state that the universe and the creator of the universe are evil generally called against the Gnostics. Every time I have posted it, even though I have sourced it to the point of an entire sets of scholars conferences and even very current research it gets attacked. This makes no sense. It does not matter if it is my opinion or other peoples this is what is in the scholarly works of Armstrong. Why is this not allowed. Why are administrator not protecting sourced data and even material that merely reflects what the actual person (yes Plotinus) actually stated in their own works.
 * comment unfortunately, I must say that the above comments do tend to support my view that the article has excessive detail. DGG (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well once again thats thanks to fellow editors. Example: I created a separate set of articles for each of students as described in the life of Plotinus by Porhpyry the articles and the individuals did not warrant (according to the editors on wikipedia) separate articles so the content was consolidated into a single article Disciples of Plotinus. Again I did not agree to this and I don't think it was correct but no one listened no one cares blah blah blah.
 * Strong Delete Based on no media coverage of this event Corpx 02:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thats the whole reason I wrote the article was the information about the book and the conference is not readily available and that is what makes it important and note worthy since very little from the 80s pre internet is actually online.
 * Just speaking for myself, I want to see these topics covered well and in the most effective way. For an encyclopedia, this necessarily involves proportion and summary and grouping. I am not convinced that those most involved in a topic necessarily have the ideal balance for this. Naturally, this does not mean we include articles only that interest everybody, or a majority. It means we include articles equally such that all likely readers will find some of what they want--not everything they might want--we're intended as a first reference--just an encyclopedia--not a definitive scholarly resource. Beyond a point, excessive detail discourages the more general reader. I very strongly support good articles on esoteric subjects--they are even more important than on familiar subjects--but they should not be treated as if of interest to the scholars only. DGG (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

*Comment I understand. I just would like to find the proper way to intergrate or add this type of information or data. LoveMonkey 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Neoplatonism and Gnosticism Tom Harrison Talk 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (merge some) The current article does not quite manage to support, to a reader knowing very little on the subject like myself, the assertion that it was a "turning point" in the study of the subject. If in fact it was, I would support an article, regardless of factors mentioned above like lack of media coverage (!!), and lack of a succession of conferences in the same series. But I would expect to see "fallout" coverage of the discussions in scholarly books and articles referenced, and these do not yet seem to be in the article.  Presumably only a few of the many papers listed contributed to the "turning point"; a full list is excessive.  If the result of this debate is to delete, I would not want this to be taken as a precedent for deletion of other articles on papers or conferences that have crystallised a notable academic debate.  Johnbod 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, due to lack of notability and coverage by news media or other reliable sources. Possibly the conference can be mentioned in the Neoplatonism and Gnosticism article, but this article is not needed. --Aude (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is difficult to discern why the coverage of "news media" is taken seriously as a criterion when it comes to scholarly matters. "Or other reliable sources" comment is false, as was demonstrated earlier; see Kemp citation. { Ben S. Nelson } 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Coverage in news media and other sources is how we assess the notability of everything on WP. Up above I asked about the Kemp citation: what kind of coverage does it give to the conference? A quote would be helpful. At any rate, I'm still not seeing why we need a separate article on the conference; what we should do is use the conference papers as sources for other articles, e.g. Gnosticism and Plotinus. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your previous request on Kemp's treatment and use was a reasonable one, and I regret not responding to it sooner. My resources, unfortunately, seem to be limited to Google Scholar at the moment. Still, it seems to me that it is not a foregone conclusion that the conference is not noteworthy; this is challenged by even one citation (on record). If it turns out that the Kemp citation is a passing reference, then I would change my vote to "delete". Until then, I can't.
 * All that being said, I must in particular point out how seriously I disagree with the "media coverage" criterion, as applied to the case of scholarly matters. Often, scholars insulate themselves from the world. That doesn't mean that we should assume that any given Wikipedia user should be apathetic towards those scholarly concerns that happen to fail to make it into the local Times. I fear this is exactly what is being suggested, by those who appeal to the "no news media" standard. { Ben S. Nelson } 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Neoplatonism appears rarely in the news media, yet everyone will agree that we should have a robust and detailed article about it; this is because there are plenty of reliable, scholarly sources that cover the subject in detail. On the other hand, we have seen little evidence that reliable sources (including, but not limited to, news media) cover this conference, and treat it as a notable event either as an event in scholarship or as something of interest to the general public. And quite frankly, unless there were multiple sources that told us this conference was remarkable in a way that other academic conferences aren't, I would still say we don't need an article on it: there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of academic conferences every year, and almost all of them lead to an advance in scholarship: they're supposed to be about the advancement of knowledge, after all. I maintain that the best way to document this conference is to use the scholarship it produced to improve the relevant articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the book you're talking about is at amazon.com, and can be searched. I didn't have any luck finding relevant material, but I might have missed something. However, the book appears to be somebody's Ph.D. thesis, which I would not consider an appropriate source for Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? This is probably not the place to have an extended discussion of this but I would think the mark of a good Ph.D. thesis is that (1) it's worthy of being cited and (2) it's worthy of being published (by a major publishing house, not self-published).  --Richard 03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dissertations aren't peer reviewed. Once they're published by a reputable press, then they're peer-reviewed; but then they're books, not theses. The particular work we're referring to is "published" by BookSurge LLC--this is essentially self-publishing. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems a strange thing to say Akhilleus. As far as none of the papers peerreview, none were seeking PHDs that made up this conference or at least none to my knowledge. Also some these presentations are in other books as I listed above by SUNY. And peer review journals and republished on JSTOR. Also they have been republished by different respective Universities internally. Like the article by

Turner that is published online by the University of Nebraska and is part of his class curriculum. I mean we do use people's PHD's as sources since in order for them to obtain the PHD the work has to be peer reviewed. Please clarify Akhilleus. LoveMonkey 12:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LoveMonkey, the dissertation in question is "The Christaquarians?: A Sociology of Christians in the New Age" by Daren Kemp, which { Ben S. Nelson } raised as a possible source for the conference's notability. This is a different thing than the conference papers. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - lack of notability. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - seems notable as an academic conference, but I agree that there are some WP:OR issues (specifically OR by synthesis, as few independent sources about the conference itself are cited). However, there are clearly users active on the article, and I don't think deletion is the solution here - give them time to work on it. I suspect that appropriate sources will be added in due course. Waltontalk 12:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Walton, would you mind clarifying why you think the conference seems notable? And please note that the article has existed since October 2006, and seems to have been created due to disagreements at Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, which has existed even longer but has always included material about this conference--this seems like more than enough time to find sources establishing the conference's notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge. As EALacey says above, the topic of the conference is what is notable &mdash; and Wikipedia already has an article on this topic, Neoplatonism and Gnosticism.  To the extent that there is anything notable about this conference, this can be stated in that article.  The conference per se is certainly not notable; I am a scholar and present my work at conferences, and often these presentations lead towards publication, etc., but, unless the conference is so important as to have generated media coverage of the issues discussed, etc., then it cannot rise anywhere near the notability standard required of a publication to be included in the encyclopedia.  Wareh 16:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as others have said above, the topic of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism is notable and merits an article, but this conference event is not.--Isotope23 16:12, 10 July 2007 (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.