Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermeticism and other thought systems


 * 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. Rje 00:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hermeticism and other thought systems
POV essay full of original research. Cites many facts, but the conclusions are the editor's own. &mdash;Hanuman Das 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per my nom. &mdash;Hanuman Das 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research and controversial claims unreferenced. Zeusnoos 02:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely filled to the brim with OR. Please look over the talk page of the article where it goes into detail about all of the citations and material in the article before deciding to support the deletion or not. Also, I'd prefer that some of the material be "smerged" back to Hermeticism and Hermes. SynergeticMaggot 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd also like to add that the majority of citations are being used to lead readers into believing that there are "simularites" between Hermeticism and all of these religions/thought systems. There is not enough information to establish a connection between Hermeticism as a thought system and Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Trancendentalism, Wicca and Paganism, and Zoroastrianism. There are large paragraphs of Original Research to establish these points, and then there are very few thought systems which do have simularities, none of which appear to be established, and nothing in detail. Just weak links. Please note that the article brings up Hermetism which is also listed here for deletion and is reaching a consensus for deletion. SynergeticMaggot 04:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. `'mikka (t) 05:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This pretty clearly OR. Ace of Sevens 06:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research perhaps, but not original thoughts. I agree with SynergeticMaggot that the purpose of the article seems to be to encourage other people to think in the way the author thinks.  Foucault's Pendulum shows us why Wikipedia cannot afford this. Byrgenwulf 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not OR, it has 31 references from 12 sources. Perhaps more needs to be cited, but it is above the standards of the average Wikipedia article.KV(Talk) 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * References don't mean it isn't OR. The references, rather than stating the points from the article are the data sources on which the conclusions are based. Ace of Sevens 12:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the nominator and others would be willing to work on this, the article can be improved, and even in the worst case scenario of what one views it as now, would be salvagable. The claims of OR were not explained and included claiming that cited facts were OR. The article deals with similarities and interactions between these systems, how one may have influenced the other or where they have similar beliefs, with no claim that one gave the other that belief.  This is not OR, this is cited.  Some is uncited, in what I considered to be uncontroversial.  I can still offer citations for this, and work with the other editors to make this a good article.  But there has been no attempt to work with me on this, only false accusations (where there may be actual "OR" is not what they claimed was OR) and an attempt to attack other articles to prevent me from spending time to fix this one.  These are bad faith measures, and there needs to be work on this, not a simple deletion.  They are taking a strong immediatist stance and I'm taking only a very moderate eventualist stance, it will be fixed eventually through work and discussion to be done immediately.  I was planning on this weekend.KV(Talk) 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Citations do not preclude something from being OR. For example, a PhD thesis has to be filled to the brim with both citations and original research in order to be worth a degree: citing facts from books but stringing them together in a fashion not found in those books counts as original research; indeed, that's why it's research and not "original fantasy".  It's quite fine, KV if you want to work on it this weekend: this AfD will last five days. For my part, I shall change my opinion to a "keep" if at the end of the period the article is sufficiently fixed up; although I doubt by its very nature that it can be...that's why I think it should go.  Byrgenwulf 13:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is most certainly original research trying to prove a thesis. Otherwise, it would be sufficient to add the facts to Hermeticism and/or the articles about the other "systems." Ekajati 14:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Clearly OR. -999 (Talk) 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. KV is trying to get this blocked now here. SynergeticMaggot 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as an essay title, not an encyclopedia article title. Merge any verifiable information to the appropriate articles.  Jkelly 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not encyclopedic. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't even tell what the article's thesis is.  Is it that religions interact and cover some of the same topics?  Well, duh, they are religions, of course they cover religious topics, and it is nearly inevitable that they will interact if spacial-temporally colocated and highly likely that any two comprehensive or near-comprehensive world views will have some degree of similarity.  I'm way outside my fields of expertise and reliable knowledge on this specific religion, but I see no reason to believe that it is original research and User:RJHall who removed the prod tags is also unclear whether this really is OR.  The article appears to have originated as a fork from Hermeticism, in which it is properly treated as a subarticle.  If you go into edit mode there you get the message "This page is 32 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."  I'm convinced this was good material to fork from Hermeticism first as it tells us the least about Hermeticism.  GRBerry 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You said: I'm convinced this was good material to fork from Hermeticism first as it tells us the least about Hermeticism.. This seems a bit strange. How can the article be good if it tells us the least about Hermeticism? Shouldnt it go into depth about Hermeticism, since this is the whole point of the article? I'm bringing this to your talk page. SynergeticMaggot 03:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "Good" appears in the phrase "good to fork". I meant by that sentence that it was the least important material to continue to include in that main article, and thus good material to move out in order to shorten that article.  GRBerry 03:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Synopsis I've had a reasonably extensive discussion with SynergeticMaggot, primarily on my talk page, partially on his.  He clarified for me that he believes "The point of the article is trying to make it appear that Hermeticism is related to all of those religions via the name 'thought systems'."  I read the article both as an RFC responder and again for this AFD and came to the conclusion that there is no significant relationship, hence I disagree with him as to whether the article is trying to make that point.  GRBerry 06:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. Thats why you disagree? The lead intro is only one line and says: This article outlines both similarities between Hermetism, Hermeticism, and other thought systems as well as their interactions between one another. We both agree here that there are no simularities/significant relationship! Yet the article claims it. :p SynergeticMaggot 06:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Sigh, I thought we'd reached mutual understanding.  I guess not.  I believe that there is no significant relationship, not that there are no similarities.  In some of the cases there may be significant similarities (I haven't probed that deeply into all the cases), in some there are no significant similarities.  Similarities and relationships are different.  There can be high degrees of similarity with insignificant relationships.  For two biological ways such situations can arise, see convergent evolution and evolutionary relay.  I believe that there are occasional similarities, some interactions, but no significant relationships.  GRBerry 07:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. By this rationale of hunting for similarities, let's create articles on contemporary Chinese cooking and Roman military cuisine, or the Mayan calendar and the I-Ching, or Lord of the Rings and Politics in India.  Zeusnoos 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I know that was facecious, but lets not. It would only add to this confusion! :p SynergeticMaggot 15:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. Either way there is no real connection established other than the Gnosticism section and a little bit of the Wicca section, and no similarities. SynergeticMaggot 07:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - if User:RJHall removed the prod tag then that says it all. Orangehead 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please note that RJHall is not participating in this discussion, and should not be used as a reason for keeping or deleting an article. Cheers. SynergeticMaggot 15:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; Yikes, I should certainly hope not! But I suspect that may have been a "sarcastic" vote anyway. Looks like I've been spending too much time in here... &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:06, 31 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.