Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oahspe: A New Bible


 * 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oahspe: A New Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable religioius text, per WP:NB. References are insufficient to show significant coverage by major media outlets, or to show that the related religious movement is significant. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 05:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I started this article in 2003.  I believe it's a subject in the 1956 Encyclopedia Americana.  It does seem that some POV has crept in; but a brief look at the Books and Scholar results is enough to indicate that this is significant enough to sustain an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The book inspired several communes, besides the important one in Shalam, and many religious organizations and esoteric fraternities which are still in existence after more then 120 years; It is also meaningful to understand the thread of the "American Bibles", like the Book of Mormon, the Urantia Book and more, and the connections between religion and masonry in the USA.Vanais (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Primary sources and in-faith references with no indications that this minor book has done anything more notable than be the religious text of a minor schismatic sect does not a notable article make. Not every religious topic is automatically notable by dint of being part of a religion.Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Oahspe spear-pointed a movment toward oneness in the worlds religions in 1882 when such unity was unheard of. I have been a student of Oahspe for 30 years and it expresses my chosen religion, which constitutionally we all have as a basic right in this country. Thousands of Oahspes have been sold since it was printed in 1882. To say that the thousands of us around the world who study this religion are not significant (this seems related to similar efforts to close down the Faithism site) seems like an effort toward religious censorship and suppression of the basic rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I hope that I am wrong but I have seen how offended people can be when someone chooses not to believe as they do. Oashpe is a classic religious text and the general public has a right to acquire the valuable information contained in wikipedia concerning Oahspe. I know for a fact that the Oahspe site gets hits from all over the world, and this world-wide interest may have someone with traditional beliefs concerned. If so please do not fear, the accuracy of Oahspe's account of Judeo-Christian texts is continually being supported by discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library, so it is no threat to the revelation of the spiritual message contained in the origianl Hebrew and Greek texts.Lordessoflight (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Every time a religion isn't notable we get somebody bringing out the "help, help, I'm being oppressed" language. If this minor sect was so instrumental in shaping modern religion provide a RELIABLE SOURCE demonstrating it and the AfD will be irrelevant.Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Stuff like this is bad referencing: Numerous publications[41] have been inspired by Oahspe, incorporating text and ideas from it, as well as reinterpretations, condensed and abridged versions. The reference number 41 is a bibliography of primary sources and does not indicate third party discussion of the text.Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Sorry Simon, If you want me to provide reliable sources for some statement I made you will have to quote me accurately. Since I did not say that Oahspe was “instrumental in shaping modern religion,” I am not sure what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordessoflight (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks suficiently notable to me. Some sections need to be more NPOV, but AfD is not cleanup. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've barely touched on the PoV issues here. I'm talking about the lack of valid references. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite heavily, using sources such as    - however, I don't know about Faithism which is also undergoing AfD, and Universal Faithists of Kosmon should not have a stand alone article. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doug, I got them all in there. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hold no brief for the Faithism article, and frankly am rather astounded that there are apparently people who still study this alleged revelation and accept its authority. I suspect that the Faithism article and Universal Faithists of Kosmon ought to be dealt with together, at minimum, or merged into the article on Oahspe itself.  When I made this stub in 2003, I treated it mostly as a literary and historical curiosity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

— Lovewisdompower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This article is three years old and well developed. If it is accurate it will help people studying cult behavior if not it should be fixed. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Oahspe may not meet the guidelines for inclusion as a work of literature, and, certainly, some sort of guidelines are necessary in these times of verbal abundance and international connection. Nonetheless, Oahspe has influenced and inspired and uplifted many people of different faiths from around the globe over the last 125 (+/-) years.  It is a good thing and, in that regard, it seems contrary to common sense to omit all mention of it from what has come to be the source of information for millions. Lovewisdompower (talk)
 * Keep The references are key for me, the POV issues can be cleaned up by experts on the subject. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep unlike the Faithism article, this is both notable and verifiable (though the article does need work). Pretty much any book kept more or less continually in print for 130 years is notable enough for me. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Historical notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, of course. --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. a number of online and offline communities exist in support of this publication. Copies can still be purchased and the book can be downloaded from several online sources. There is considerable interest worldwide in the subject. An article is therefore justified.User: Tassiewiker 28 December 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC).
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Is there a way to speedy keep this and close this rather pointless discussion? I mean, looking up "Oahspe" in the Google News archive gives you this--enough said. Did the nominator even bother to do this? Or are the New York and Los Angeles Timeses not notable enough for them? This is in a book published by W.W. Norton & Company, this from a book published by Walter de Gruyter, etc. Whether the movement ever took off or not is irrelevant: the book, written by another one of these nineteenth-century middle-class professionals who got their religion from eating too much ectoplasm, is plenty notable. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: it's pretty obvious that the movement did take off, as evidenced by some of the excellent sources provided by User:Dougweller (see above; thanks, Doug); I am working on including them in the article. It's slow going, but it's quite interesting. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - From Drmies news search, there does appear to be a number of historical news articles we can use to source the article. However, the current version needs gutted and written based on reliable sources, not the mess of primary sources given right now. Without proper sourcing, though, this article doesn't stand. At best, it would exist as a stub. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:37, 29 December 2009 (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.