Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormon Transhumanist Association


 * 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. Appears to be a TNT case but editors encouraged to try again using the sources below Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Mormon Transhumanist Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable WP:ORG. All citations seem to be to a WP:Walled garden of transhumanism sources. jps (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am fairly convinced by 's work that it is possible to write an article on this subject that does not suffer from the problems from which the current version suffers. jps (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: can you please explain what you mean by "walled garden"? I see several academic journals and books published by university presses among the references. Also YouTube, yes, but that doesn't invalidate the good sources not argue for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources that are to books published by university presses do not really mention this organization. As for academic journals, I don't see them. So many of the sources are to transhumanist websites and pocket journals that if you stripped all that away, you'd have nothing. jps (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Cosmos and History looks very dubious, and it just cites the MTA website to show that religious transhumanists exist. The book sources provide only passing mentions and don't say anything about the organization of the organization. It's possible that there's more substantial documentation elsewhere, but I'm doubtful at the moment. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Comment   Keep : I'm not entirely sure this has the significant coverage by reliable sources that would meet WP:ORG. I do see Interpreter, but that seems a little shaky as a reliable source—might need RSN if it was pressed. Then there's a mention in The Transhumanism Handbook, which might be fine for an article but doesn't really contitute extensive coverage. And there's Theology and Science, but that was by the former MTA president so can hardly be considered independent. There are a couple of pages in Theologically Engaged Anthropology , which might be something, as might a piece in Logic. Then there's a piece in Ethnos. I'll have to take another look tommorow. --tronvillain (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC); edited 14:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking further, there's also "The Immortality Upgrade" in The New Yorker, a bit in an American Ethnologist interview (Bialecki again, so that doesn't count as an additional source for notability) , a piece on The Next Web , a piece in The Carolinian , and an entry in Trancendence (which while about transhumanism, doesn't seem to actually be part of the walled garden beyond describing it). Then there's "The Intersection of Tech and Church" on OZY. Also, a piece on World Religion News and an offhand mention on Religion News Service. Looking at the whole pile, I think it probably constitutes sufficient coverage—it's coverage of nonsense, but organizations can be about nonsense. The article definitely needs some work though. --tronvillain (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Great work, Tronvillain. I'm inclined to say on the basis of some of this (especially that New Yorker article), we might be able to write a piece on them. jps (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent sources about the group. Guy (help!) 23:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete much of the coverage is not on the organization per se, but reaction to a paper by one of the people connected with the organization. The coverage does not focus on the organization as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. The sources cited here, particularly the New Yorker article, are sufficient evidence of notability. Tim Smith (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2020 (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.