Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numbers as religious symbols (2nd nomination)


 * 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. A potentially decent topic, but the current article doesn't cut it and there's no good version to revert to. It will have to be rewritten from scratch, as there's nothing salvageable here. faithless  (speak)  08:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers as religious symbols
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article contains nothing but original research and unverified claims. Also, it's very one-sided, discussing only negative symbols. Possibly falls under WP:CSD but I can't prove that the deleted article is anything like this one. PeterSymonds | talk  17:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article needs cleanup, and lots of it, but not deletion. Much of what it currently states is common knowledge, and it is unfortunate that it does not go beyond the basics. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If a number is holy or unholy, this information is presented in the number's article, not here. Fails NPOV. In the former AfD, the article is deleted. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think this comes down to whether the consensus is that this is an encyclopedic topic in its own right. If so then perhaps this article is in need of a rescue flag to help with the serious cleanup and referencing to secondary sources that it requires, before this AFD is closed. If not then delete and distribute the information (if it can be referenced to reliable sources) amongst the articles on the individual numbers per Zero Kitsune above. Wiw8 (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has never been much, and it's been around for more than a year, never rising beyond original research and bored speculation, and never sourced.  Summary: 666 is bad, as everyone already knows.  13 is bad.  9 can be bad.  Assuming Hitler's followers were practicing a "Nazi Germanism" religion, 88 is bad.  Might be a good topic in the hands of someone who knows what they're writing about.  Mandsford (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete massive POV problems, and total original research. Six is not a pretty number; eight or three are definitely better. Sceptre (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not even sure why this is flagged for rescue. While normally I'll see if an article is worth saving, but even if I do clean up the POV it will just be a collection of other persons POV. ANy information worth saving in this article can be included in other articles discussing religion. - Jahnx ( talk ) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic of the article is inherently encyclopedic; it allows for more general and po-mo references to be incorporated that other competing articles--e.g.,Gematria and Theomatics--cannot. The former article's topic Gematria must primarily be about Hebrew religious alpha-numeric symbols, while the latter article's topic Theomatics must primarily be about the Christian Bible (Hebrew and Greek religious alpha-numeric symbols).--Firefly322 (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. If this is to be "rescued", it must be scraped clean and started anew as a list of numbers as religious symbols organized by religion... and only if it is very well sourced. B.Wind (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. OR variation on numerology. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect. The article itself is a valid topic. The content at present is dreadful, and appears to have already been deleted once before. But I think that merge-ing/REDIRECT-ing it to another article (e.g. Numerology or Numbers) would do more to discourage its recreation in its current state than deletion would. The other alternative to prevent recreation would be salting, but I don't think that's appropriate given that this is a valid topic. --SJK (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2008 (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.