Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neoplatonism and Gnosticism


 * 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 No consensus. Stifle (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism
Article is mostly a table of contents (copyvio?). The rest is a personal essay on a non-notable book. Title plus author gets 147 Google hits, some of which are WP mirrors. 16 on GoogleScholar. 70 on GoogleBooks. Keep in mind if researching the author that User:LoveMonkey (author of nominated article) may have written what you're reading. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Armstrong died in 1997; perhaps the article was channelled. Lambiam Talk 23:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Either a blatant copyvio, or an ad for the book by its author. Either way, not encyclopedic. Fan1967 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Both these comment are false. -- FloNight  talk  02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - The book might, possibly, elicit a mention somewhere within the articles on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. But this article appears to be NN vanity. ProhibitOnions 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as utterly non-notable. Stifle 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral No reason to delete. Aspects of the "personal essay" are irrelevant, as that can be corrected. I've seen many references to this book, and am in no way convinced it's non-notable. --DanielCD 01:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you cite any of those references? Thanks.  -- noosphere 21:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Since I wrote a lot of the re-write of the article, I know it is not a copyright violation. This article was proded by me, then worked on by 3-4 editors. We agreed that it was worthy of keeping.   FloNight   talk  02:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've never heard of this book. Seems non-notable. Keep if and only if it can be worked into something verifiable.  Otherwise, delete. KSchutte 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete The article contains some strong statements ("The book marked a turning point in the discussion on the subject of Neoplatonism"; "The book is considered a cornerstone to dialog between the different scholars in the field of philosophy"). If these claims can be supported by reputable citations — which should not be hard if they are true — the book is clearly notable. Lacking such citations, the article does not establish notability. I must add that the section Current developments appears somewhat speculative and unsupported, possible presenting original research or a particular point of view. Lambiam Talk  00:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It could use some revision and a bit of removal of point of view (use of words like "Our", but just because the article needs work is no reason to delete it. Adam Cuerden 19:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, original research.  -- noosphere 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Has been reviewed twice in professional peer-reviewed journals of history of philosophy. Lucidish 03:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you provide references to substantiate this assertion? Also, would only two reviews make for a notable book?  -- noosphere 21:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article falls into a common trap that a lot of Wiki articles fall into: The Table of Contents approach to writing. (See also Enneads, The Holy Books of Thelema, etc.) Should we have a wiki policy that articles consisting substantially of tables of contents should include a brief description of each chapter/section, ideally written for a non-expert? It'd make most such articles much more informative. A (Vote is already given above) Adam Cuerden 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * An editor is in the process of doing this for this article. They are a student, I believe, and works on it as time permits. This article is a work in progress like every other article on Wikipedia. The book is a collection of pieces from a 1980's conference. If the conference occurred today then it would not be an issue. Most 1980's academic conferences are not going to be found online. FloNight   talk  13:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Right'n. As long as it is being worked on, I can't see any reason for its deletion. And things from the 780's are going to be highly under-represented online anyway, so they're no guide Adam Cuerden 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the book info be removed and a stub be created on the topic of the conflict between NeoPlatonism and Gnosticism. There is significant interest on the talk page regarding the topic, but not the book. I would vote to keep such a stub. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even if wiki is offering book reviews (this was listed as a topic rather than book review) the article is lacking organization. On the conditional delete comment, I happen to know most of the scholars whose work comprise this book. I wouldn't dispute that this is a turning point, but this is overemphasized (in comparison to the other work in the neoplatonic scholars community).  Much work has been done on this topic since 1984.  If this article is kept, it only makes sense to review *all* of the ISNS and APS works connecting neoplatonism with other topics (most published by SUNY, more recent works published by University Press of the South), as well as the works lead by John Turner (U Nebraska), Universite Laval, and Society of Biblical Literature on gnosticism. Zeusnoos 20:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This article has cost me considerable time and effort and I have been able to have it submitted for peer review by a known member of the International Neoplatonic society. The professor (Professor Moore) has a seat and who is very close to his doctoriate can add a great deal of credibility to wikipedia. Professor Moore has already reviewed the article and stated it was fine. I can forward the email to the admins here if need be. Please tell me why posters on here would rather not discuss these things with me directly. The staff of admins at Wikipedia (who are obviously overwhelmed) seem to be able to find time. Why can not other people. Learning is a process by which one is challenged. Unlike some articles and posters, this article is about the field of study it is so named and this book is the only solidly authoritarian source of the subject. Please post if you guys know any others (pretty please with cherries on top). Unlike some posters who use new age groups to prop up their made up interruption of greek history, words, works and culture. I am doing my best to give the article legitimacy. I believe in wikipedia and I believe that charlatans work can not will not stand up to peer review. I am doing what I can to have the article be about the field of study and to give wikipedia (alittle bit at a time) the type of foundation that states the information is backed up scholars in the respective fields so mentioned in the article. I appreciate all those who have stated that article should stay. I would like to express not only dismay at the disruptive conduct displayed in the request to have the article DELETED rather then reworked, by people who may not have a knowledge of the scholars who work make up the book and conference. Let alone what the book actually states. LoveMonkey 14:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is also to introduce the many scholars (Wallid, Allen, Dillon, Armstrong) and committes (international neoplatonic society) to wikipedia. So that their profiles might also be created. It would be better if people read the works of the middle or later platonic scholars and posted the articles then engage in disruptive behaviour. I have more much much more to learn then I could ever have to teach. LoveMonkey 15:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * PS Adam Cuerden is right but Flonight beat you to the point. Adam Cuerden please help. LoveMonkey 15:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts (Symposium Series (Society of Biblical Literature), No. 12.) (Paperback) by John D. Turner (Editor), Ruth Dorothy Majercik (Editor), 2001. ISBN: 0884140350. Also see individual essays on the topic published from later SBL and ISNS conferences.
 * On my original statement that the article should be deleted, I will concede that it is an important topic, and should be kept as a topic, but that it should not maintain the format of a book review of one source. As close colleague of Dr. Moore, I do not think he actually looked at the article on wikipedia but a section that you sent him through email. He did not understand the structure and purpose of wiki.  We personally talked about this two weeks ago and he never visited this site.  I came here partly out of curiosity from our conversations, and was disappointed with the structure of the topic. Zeusnoos 17:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We would welcome and appreciate any further suggestions you might have. I'm changing my vote to neutral, as I need to re-read the article and think on it some more. --DanielCD 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment What about an article on the conference, in which we could include material about the book? Does anyone think that might work better? --DanielCD 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I suggest that we split the article into Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (book) and Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and move the text of the present article to Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (book). There's a real topic in classical studies here apart from this one conference. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. My recent edits have made that option unnecessary. The book now takes up a significant section of the article, but plenty of room is left for other related discussions. An amalgamated article seems the best route to take, since some agents believe that the book was not noteworthy, and so would surely demand the book's article be deleted once the split were to occur. Besides, the material which is there on the conference does address issues which are of distinct and direct significance to the general topic. Lucidish 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree with Lucidish. I suggest we develop the already existing article so that it can include the additional information that Zeusnoos has provided and also include the conference that the book covers and be inclusive to current events. And I graciously request the well connected Zeusnoos to contribute. As I request you Goethean to the contribute to the article as well. The better and more researched the subject matter the better wikipedia. I would like to see Zeusnoos and Goethean publically collaborate. As I would be honored to collaborate with someone as was well researched and up to current developements in the fields of Neoplatonicism and Gnosticism as Zeusnoos appears to be. Zeusnoos appears to be an excellent asset to wikipedia. :)
 * Woah, hold your horses, Charioteer. Gnosticism is not my expertise - I know far less than what can be gleaned from the books cited in the Gnosticism article.  You shouldn't volunteer someone else's time. I'm supposed to be writing something else, but I'm here, dilly-dallying instead.  I started to clean up the spelling and some of the grammar, but encountered other problems with the article.  Will detail below. Zeusnoos 01:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

LoveMonkey 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC) strong keep For the above reasons. Secos5 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe your should invite User:Visualerror, also. Oh that's right – he's the guy that you chased from the Plotinus article by sending nasty emails to his professors. Are you still harrassing your fellow editors? Or have you decided on a different strategy? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * comment why is it did you support visualerror's original research and not Garycgibson's both on plotinus? Got alittle bias against christianity? LoveMonkey 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This page is concerned with the wiki and topic of Neoplatonism/Gnosticism, not with individual users. Let's keep our comments focused. Lucidish 22:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * comment I second that Lucidish.LoveMonkey 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to clean up article
While cleaning, I encountered some problematic statements. One was the claim that the death of Socrates is the reason for the taciturn nature of the Academy. This is conjecture and Socrates was dead long before Plato started the Academy. The more plausible reason is that Plato valued the spoken word rather than the written. He didn't want the dialectic movements to be transfered outside of the context of dialogue with students and codified as doctrine.

Secondly, everything beginning with the paragraph "The Neoplatonic movement (though Plotinus" should be excised unless the link between neoplatonism and gnosticism is worked in somehow.  It's off topic.

Thirdly, when you refer to the philsophers of academy (this section is suppose to summarize the conference findings, btw, and does not seem to do so) which incarnation of the Academy do you mean? The Academy during Plato's time and that during Carneades's or Antiochus's times were very, very different in scope and aims.

Zeusnoos 01:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all let me state-Zeusnoos YOU ARE AWESOME, AWESOME, AWESOME. Thank you. You and Lucidish are of the finest persons. As for your points I concede that there are differences in the academy as Plato probably dispised pedantry. That makes it wrong to make sweeping generalizations like I did. As has been stated my articulation is poor. I apologize. But as it has been said the richness of work lies in collaboration. I am deeply appreciative of the most excellent editing and work you have done. AAAAAAHHH could I get you to take alittle peek at Plotinus Zeusnoos please ::). My contributions there could use just a tiny bit of your excellent touch. LoveMonkey 01:43, 8 April 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.