Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (religion)


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiverse (religion)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is WP:Synthesis, cobbling together various religious doctrines related to 'other worlds/realms' and committing original research by labelling them with the topic of "Multiverse (religion)". Under "Spiritualistic research" it becomes WP:PROFRINGE. In actuality, the multiverse is really only discussed in reliable sources (aside from sources about modern works of fiction) as a possible consequence of certain physics theories. Based on the way they are used, it appears that the vast majority of sources in this article do not actually say that these religious ideas can be called multiverses (I checked a few and those definitely did not), nor do they imply that there is some commonality between these ideas that suggests that they all can be considered as one "multiverse" topic. Of the three that do use the term "multiverse", one is an unreliable blog source, one is a dead link (and may be unreliable), and the last is in a journal of "Mormon thought"; these wouldn't get this past WP:GNG anyway. I suspect that for some, as the lead implies, perennial philosophy is why they believe that different religions all teach about a "multiverse". Crossroads -talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Definitely delete, totally fringe – and cringe – indeed. If the concept of multiverse would have any resonance in the scientific field, Hanegraaff (first source, prime authority in the history of esotericism) would definitely have mentioned it, but he does not, not even in his Esotericism and the Academy (2012); one could wait for the moment that esotericists would abuse Hanegraaff's work for their own purpose, and it seems that is exactly what happens in this article, opening and closing with reference to his Guide for the Perplexed. Thanks for this deletion request. Eissink (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC).


 * Keep The nomination's claim that multiverses are purely a matter of physics is false. Here's a book on the subject – God and the Multiverse – and there are plenty more with similar titles.  As the topic is notable, our policies WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTPAPER indicate that we should improve the article rather than deleting it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article now makes claims on historic religions, while the book you mention concerns postulates of "recent decades": the approach to the term 'Multiverse' is entirely different. If the latter concept would justify an article, then it would have to start from scratch, so there is no need to keep the current article for that. Eissink (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Not only does a single book not satisfy WP:GNG anyway, but even if we did have any content from that book, it would belong at multiverse, not in this fork article. The description starts off by saying, "In recent decades, scientific theories have postulated the existence of many universes beyond our own." It's about religious and philosophical perspectives of the same multiverse that some scientists postulate. Neither that nor ATD, IMPERFECT, or NOTPAPER overcome that this article is WP:SYNTH and a WP:POVFORK. Crossroads -talk- 13:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as fringe synthesis. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - This is definitely a case of pure WP:SYNTH. Even if there is an argument that a legitimate article with a similar title could be made, this should not be kept in the mean time, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thoughts.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete syhth abounds here. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Too many issues with WP:SYNTH and suboptimal sources, too little to keep if using one of the rare decent ones that could support the topic. Alternatively selective merge in religious cosmology, perhaps.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SYNTH, as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, fringe and Synth. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:SYNTH of unrelated religious beliefs. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 03:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and above delete points, especially fringe synthesis.Footlessmouse (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and WP:FRINGE-yness.-- Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk 20:12, 9 October 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.