Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayah


 * 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 of the debate was - kept

I am that I am
(moved from Hayah) Masterhomer 07:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) An article that explains a Hebrew word that may for all I know be of interest to Talmudic scholars but definitely is of particular interest to John P. Ennis (who I believe is already getting vastly more attention on Wikipedia than he deserves). If there's a Hebrew-English wiktionary, I recommend cleanup and transwikiing; if there isn't, deletion. If deletion is thought to be too strong (why?), then merge with Sollog -- although it seems perverse to spend so much effort on describing what's purportedly a religious organization (the "Temple of 'Hayah") for whose real-world existence no credible evidence has been adduced. -- Hoary 04:02, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
 * Given the way the article has developed since I wrote the above, I withdraw my recommendation to delete. I'd now recommend at least one change: removal of the remaining, diminished reference to a fiction of "Sollog". I'd also tentatively suggest addition of reference to Popeye's I yam what I yam, a phrase I'm immediately reminded of when I read "I am that I am", and one that moreover is claimed to be an echo. I'm not going to make either change myself (or even change to a "keep" vote), because theology, no matter how carefully written, remains inscrutable to me. -- Hoary 03:52, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)


 * Transwiki and Delete. If that's not possible, delete outright. Doesn't merit a merge to anything. P  M  C  04:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll change to keep with improvements, but can we nuke the Eminem and Sollog references? P  M  C  04:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Bonkers but harmless really. I couldn't really see any good reason for deleting it in all that except Hoary's distaste for it, so keep.Dr Zen 04:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an English-Hebrew dictionary. I am open to being convinced of its significance beyond "this is a Hebrew word", however. Gamaliel 04:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Change vote to keep, though I am doubtful of the necessity and appropriateness of the Sollog and Eminem references. Gamaliel 17:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. The term isn't encyclopaedic. At best it could be incorporated into God as an aside to the bullet for Jehovah/Yahweh. Besides, never fight a (revert) war on multiple fronts.   &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 04:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with the caveat that IMO the Sollog/TOH section is undeserved&mdash;of all the religious thought on this phrase, the TOH interpretation comes dead last in notability.   &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 08:14, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, foreign dicdef. The reference to Ennis involves a religion with no followers, part of a web mining operation that includes deathporn. Keep, nice save. Wyss 04:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to some appropriate Biblical page and protect. Maybe a self-redirect or something to keep it from being re-created. Redirect to Tetragrammaton and protect. --Carnildo 04:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article is being actively worked on. Masterhomer 05:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems like either a hoax or original research. Do a google search and you only get some very dodgy looking websites. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Besides some weird insert by an Anon editor, there is nothing that could be considered "original research". Masterhomer 05:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Now I see the new article, I strongly support keeping. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that the article is being actively maintained. Masterhomer 05:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. For purposes of describing its place in Ennis' religion of one, there is nothing here that isn't covered at Sollog. For its other religious uses, there is (or can be) a better job done at Tetragrammaton. We don't need an article on the alleged esoteric meanings of every Hebrew word in the Tanakh . Fire Star 05:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Change vote to keep, article has improved significantly in concept and execution. Fire Star 16:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Move and keep in its present form - "I am that I am" is a phrase of great significance in Judaeo-Christian thought. Google returns over 60,000 hits for the English version, so I propose moving it to I am that I am (currently a redirect to God). Sollog's fictional religion needn't be mentioned at all. --Rlandmann 06:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The plan is to move it to "I am that I am". I can not move the article when it is listed on VfD, however. Masterhomer 06:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's a real article now. Good work. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, good work. Dan100 10:29, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * keep - David Gerard 11:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, nice job Masterhomer. Rje 13:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good work. --JuntungWu 14:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. – Kaihsu 17:45, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
 * ...Keep and delist. An obviously notable religious topic. Everyking 17:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, good article. Dbenbenn 18:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -Ld | talk 18:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I want to see how this article develops, as I do think it's encyclopedic. - Gilgamesh 21:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, protect the hayah and hayah asher hayah redirects against Sollog sockpuppet vandalism. --Carnildo 23:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Concur. Edeans 01:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly keep. I think that some people may have misconstrued this as a Sollog-affair - it is much more important than that in the real world. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 16:19, 25 Dec 2004 (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.