Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life


 * 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 KEEPbut MOVE to Mormon cosmology. Under that name it would certainly seem to be a legitimate concept. Whether the article can be cleaned up and redacted to fit the title is now up to the editors. Herostratus 18:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Concerns exist regarding WP:N and possibly WP:OR SESmith 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has references and if there is any concerns it can be rewritten or just simply remove what you think is OR and use the talk page first. Therefore, no reason to delete. :) - Mr.Gurü ( talk/contribs ) 23:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge some of the information with Latter-Day Saints or something. Not original research because there's lots of sources.  Useight 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain &mdash; I have been too recently involved in the heated discussions on this article. Though, to give my opinion on this subject: There are great concerns about lack of secondary sources, links only from only two articles (in See Also sections), and a certain contributor owning the article.  There are also concerns about the name of the article and the emphasis placed in the article.  (See the article's talk page.) If I were to be pushed (by this same certain contributor) to change from an abstain, I would change my vote to at least rename but probably delete. Val42 23:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well sourced, and since the actual sources are quoted, its fair. i think this is a valid use of primary sources. It is true that one of the eds. does seem to be animated by bias, but the present article does not reflect this. There was clearly no consensus on the talk page about a change. The objections to this article represent COI and the failure of some eds. to obtain ownership. DGG 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and resolve dispute at talk - I don't think AfD is the way to resolve this issue. It would be useful to try to thrash out a balanced article at the talk page (specific concerns will need to be stated rather than a vague "WP:N and possibly WP:OR") and perhaps consider renaming if there's a consensus to do so. However, since there are quite clearly reliable sources in evidence that at least some prominent LDS leaders have espoused these views, deleting the article altogether doesn't look like the right solution. --YFB ¿  00:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I purposefully kept the reasons in the proposal "vague" to avoid reproducing the mass of material on the Talk page about these concerns. Ample detail can be found there on what the concerns are. -SESmith 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Sometimes Wikipedia has the unfortunate ability to evolve into a collection of personal blog articles or soap boxes. Though this started out as such, it can turn into a worthy article. The title needs to be changed and continued work on expanding the content will help. There are some definite issues regarding notability that need to be decided. Some of these issues probably have more to do with difficult relationships with an editor. I am rather Cromagnon like; to me editing is a priviledge and abuse should be given a very short leash. Those who abuse our policies just because of ease should be banned indefinitely because they add nothing to Wikipedia but abuse. Chances beyond the 3rd should be withdrawn; certainly those where the chances seem endless. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename - There has been some debates that the article should be renamed to something more along the lines of classifying the content as scientific theories of church leaders rather than prophecy by LDS prophets.  I think it should be renamed and kept.  There were some very good suggestions on the talk page of possible names.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Move or Merge to an article about obscure teachings by Mormon leaders - i think this could be quite an interesting article about obscure teachings, such as BY telling parowan stake youth to get married at age 16 - in the same instructions as telling widowers not to remarry. Or how about the hankerchief of Wilford Woodruff that was used by Smith to heal hundreds at Commerce (later Nauvoo), that was later credited with the healings of hundreds of others. Or the early dietary teachings of BY, including the OT-like abstaining from Pork. There are dozens of other teachings which could make an interesting articel, but how this one stands, it is simply a list of quotes that should be put on Wikiquotes. In any case, there are multiple connotation issues with the current title - it leads the reader to believe that Mormons currently teach about aliens, rather than the more accurate, "God's creations of worlds is numberless." And, the title doesn't follow current Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) as this deals with the broader Latter Day Saint movement, and not just the LDS Church. Simply said, I don't think it has enough material to stand on its own. It is like an article on George W. Bush's pronounciation of "Nuclear." -Visorstuff 05:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Much of this appears to me to be original research because there are quotes that seem to be left open to interpretation, such as: "That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." Given the article title, it is clear what the editor here is trying to suggest, but this is not appropriate.  This is my first reading of the article so I am not commenting on whether to delete or keep yet, this is just my first impression.  A large part of the other sourced material is quotes.  This again leaves the suggestion to the reader to interpret the quotes, rather than citing work from an independent researcher.  If there are no independent articles/books/journals about this topic this also makes me wonder about the subject's notability.  Aside from these opinions, my feeling right now is the article is needlessly long and too quote heavy, and it would do well merged to an appropriate article.  daveh4h 06:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - There seems to be some serious original research problems here, at least the version I'm looking at (diff). The intro and entire first section make a number of assertions that have no references except for two quotations from LDS scripture (which are primary sources, and used interpretively, to boot).  This would seem to be a clear-cut WP:NOR violation, as phrases such as "which can be read as implying" and "it is believed" demonstrate. The second section contains quotes attributed to Smith by a third party, which the text goes on to indicate have "strong doubts about [their] reliability", and of which no indication is given that they represent a significant school of thought in LDS teaching.  It is followed by a long quote from Young, again with nothing to connect it with Mormon belief or anything else.  Finally, a brief section of more recent quotes, as opposed to actual references demonstrating the article's thesis (and for what it is worth, the Maxwell quote could be attributed to Carl Sagan with little difficulty).  Whether or not there is some core belief in extraterrestrial life in Morman teaching is moot - this article makes no attempt to properly document any such thing.  If there is, there should be some solid references available either from LDS publications, or scholarly works on the LDS. This is an essay, not an article.  Quietvoice 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Admitted sockpuppet see User:Quietvoice. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, acknowledged alternate account (see WP:SOCK). I have no especial interest in (or edits to) LDS articles, nor what seems (from a quick glance at User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey) to be some sort of hubbub around the above editor.  I came across this on AfD, followed back to the article, and found an essay as described above.  Not wishing to get embroiled in potential religious zealotry I used my alternate account, as I have done on a few occasions in the past. For all I know Mormons do (or did) explicitly teach extraterrestrial life as church doctrine, but if so then there needs to be references to reliable sources reporting this, not an original research essay. Quietvoice 08:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a legitimate use of WP:SOCK. I doubt someone who is nefariously using a sockpuppet would announce it on their user page. -SESmith 08:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (nominator)


 * Keep, notability of this topic has been readily addressed by Uncle G; title and content can be worked out on the talk page. John Vandenberg 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Per reasons provided by the nominator, as well as WP:V issues. For the purpose of fair disclosure, I will openly state that I consider myself to be an long term less-active non-practising member of the church in question. As a non-practising past member of that faith, this article does not sit well with me (And even prompted me to do some serious looking into the information being presented within, even contacting other past and present members to obtain their views). After much consideration and research into this matter, I am openly prepared to suggest that the premise of the article in question is complete bollocks. Two of the references in the article cite an organisation known as the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research who state on their website that All research and opinions provided on this site... should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice. Secondly, the article in any case lacks sufficient citations and references to support the assertion that the church in question per the articles assertions believes that persons on other planets are extraterrestrial life. In fact, the opening of the article totally contradicts such assertions, As such, it is believed that there are other worlds that are peopled and that they would also have been created in his image and after his likeness similar to this world.. I think that the interpretation of the beliefs, doctrines, statements or value systems of any religious order can be quite dangerous specially considering the ability of others to take such content out of context. I am even more concerned that the main contributor to the article in question, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, which I have independently become aware of as a known long-term POV-pusher in relation to Latter-day Saint articles and has a long and documented history of doing so. This was to the point where he has actually banned from en.wp twice in the last 45 days, one for massive disruption, and despite mentoring assistance from some respected admins has failed to be more considered in his contributions (diff) (RFC. I do not mean to continue on discussing the user, but regrettably his previous actions necessitates their discussion in the context of this AfD. He previously has edited en.wp under the username Gadugi (block log} which was blocked indef on 15 Oct 2005. I also recall, which an admin who I converse with often, do recall the user in question making statements on talk pages relating to the speedy deletion (as an attack article) of one entry titled mormon men in black in which he claimed he had suffered some level of oppression in both personal and business life at what he claimed was the hands of Mormon interests. I have as yet been unable to find the diff in question regarding this, but regardless this goes to a conflict of interest in relation to his editorial activities. It is regrettable that even after multiple and continued opportunities to reform his act, a user such as Merkey continues to act in a manner on en.wp which does nothing to damage the reputation of himself, the community, and the encyclopaedia at large. Thewinchester (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These comments I categorically deny. They are inappropiate for a deletion discussion on the notability of an article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment They are appropriate here as they go to the editorial leanings of yourself as core contributor to the article, and your rather colourful history of contribution to en.wp. Why is it you only ever comment on those who challenge you? On the information I have regarding your activities at the Cherokee wikipedia, you run the place with an iron fist and block anyone there who disagrees with you. If you're going to comment on my comments, address the concerns with the article and provide some meaningful input other than the constant Anti-religion rants that we've seen from you thusfar. Further, with due respect to the well intended contributions of UncleG, I don't think adding a further reading list of three books deals with the WP:RS or WP:OR concerns here, as they are just information on books, and they have not been cited inline to either support or disprove the core content. Thewinchester (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to debate with you on this. There's that anti-mormon accusation again.   Personal attacks do not belong in discussions on article notability.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Eureka! Rename and expand to Mormon cosmology. Uncle G has satisfied my concerns about reliable secondary sources (thanks very much, Uncle G), so the narrowness and phrasing of the original topic are my only remaining concerns.  I think "Mormon cosmology" is broad enough to encompass not only the notion of life on other worlds, but also various ideas about the Creation, ancient astronomy, Kolob, and so forth, and will accommodate a balance of viewpoints regarding these ideas.  (I'm uncertain whether such an article should be LDS-centric or attempt to cover the range of denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement; if the former, then "LDS cosmology" or something like that might be more in line with established Wikipedia naming conventions.) alanyst /talk/ 14:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern about dealing with the broader LDS movement on this topic is the tendency to cut off discussion to topics prior to 1845, and uncertainty that there is much in terms of content by other denominations within the LDS movement. I don't know any CoC Science Fiction authors, but I do know some that are members of the LDS Church, just to give an example.  Or astronauts for that matter (who get asked all kinds of weird questions about life in the cosmos and have responded in quotable public statements). --Robert Horning


 * Keep and move per Alanyst. AfD is not cleanup, or the place to resolve content disputes.  There are enough sources in this article to establish that it is notable and based in fact. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as to the move, two people can have identical views about extraterrestrial life and quite different cosmologies, so is "cosmology" an appropriate term here? Carlossuarez46 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep substantial topic. JJL 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mormon leaders have made comments—some of them weird—about extraterrestrials. Do these statements constitute a doctrine or belief system for the church? The answer appears to be no; the article says, "the LDS Church has not explicitly adopted any official doctrines on the existence or absence of extraterrestrials." Lacking any underlying doctrine, the quotes are disconnected. For example, Brigham Young doesn't try to defend Joseph Smith's comment about people on the moon dressed like Quakers; instead he's got his own theory about life on the sun. All of these quotes are sort of strange, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not every weird comment made by Joseph Smith merits its own article; surely the standard for notability needs to be that it mattered to the church and its adherents. Sanpete Slim 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename - I would have to agree that the current name of this article is certainly not the best one that could be used for a topic of this nature, although it doesn't need an AfD for that to be accomplished. There is sufficient material from a range of people including contemporary LDS leaders or even LDS astronauts that would make a broad article talking about LDS perspectives about the relationship of mankind in the universe something worthy of a Wikipedia article.  Reliability of sources and POV issues are a huge concern, but I think those could be dealt with through normal editing processes.  The idea of renaming to Mormon cosmology does sound like something a bit more appropriate in terms of a general theme.  I would also point out that there are also some LDS scriptural references that are doctrinal which would apply in such an article rename and could help with maintaining an NPOV.  And to help diffuse the problems of opening a back door to UFO researchers seeking legitimacy on Wikipedia. --Robert Horning 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and rename The article is well referenced, and it appears to be a notable topic. Actually, I found it interesting, but of course, that is a personal opinion.  The name is bad however.  It should be renamed.  Orangemarlin 23:02, 13 June 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.