Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private revelation


 * 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 discussion was Keep and rewrite. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Private revelation
This is almost certainly a copy and paste from somewhere; it reads like an essay, and it is stated in terms which support a single, restricted view of what a "private revelation" might mean. It's part of a fairly active campaign by to promote Roman Catholicism on Wikipedia. If it's not a copy & paste job it is probably original research, since there are precisely zero sources. It's also written in unencyclopaedic tone. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per ((db-copyvio | goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/11/memetics-in-catholic-church-part-2.html)). --Targetter 21:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: Per comments below, this is a copy-paste of the Catholic Encyclopaedia article; the title is wrong in the context of a general encyclopaedia (needs context), it violates the guidelines on the Catholic Encyclopaedia but is not actually a copyvio since the source is now public domain. Perhaps a candidate for transwiki to Wikisource, if that's appropriate? Just zis Guy you know? 07:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - as the article you link there has an anti-catholic opinion, and contains none of what the article does, not a copyvio there. Also, he claims to have taken stuff from the open source catholic encyclopedia.  Being Roman Catholic is not against the rules, and if you feel that the article is limited, expand it.  Unless someone can find somewhere else where he may have copyvio'd it, it's a keeper. PresN 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly - nobody suggest that being RC is against the rules.  B ut the odds against new and substantial articles on genuinely encyclopaedic aspects of Catholicism springing fully formed to life at this stage in the project's development, and not being either POV forks or copyvios, are pretty small. As yourself this: with over a million articles, and an active Catholic Wikiproject, what are the chan ces that this concept has remained unaddressed in Wikipedia up to now?  To the extent of requiring an essay of some 2,600 words?  Fro an editor whose recent edit history includes several tendentious edits against long-standing consensus?  Just zis Guy you know? 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you for bringing to my attention that the article is not identical. The first few lines were, but my filters at work blocked the site. I will look further. --Targetter 21:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per PresN -- Chet nc contribstalk 21:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I found a site that wasn't blocked: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm. If you look really close at the site, you'll see that most of the content is the same, just that a lot of the spots in parentheses are removed. Removing things doesn't reverse a copyvio. Clearly the person that wrote the wiki article did not type all that himself. Targetter 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote Change: Rewrite. I'm gonna be nice and say that if the person can rewrite the article without borrowing all that information from another site, it can stay. Targetter 22:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment claims to be from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia - if so it wouldn't be copyvio.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  22:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And from what site is the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia? If I can see it, I'll reverse every vote on this topic I've made today. Targetter 22:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment has the online version which is copyright but the original 1907 Copyright by Robert Appleton Company would have lapsed.  So while I am not a lawyer it looks to me like the editor could in principle have retyped some of that material without copyright infringement - and we are to presume good faith.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  22:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Here is the text. And here is is the policy page: Catholic Encyclopedia topics. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 22:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Instructions/Paragraph 2: While the text is public domain PLEASE do not simply dump text from the CE into Wikipedia without modification... Targetter 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are serious issues with this article. It is a POV fork of revelation (or maybe religious experience. The title is very poor. I would suggest changing it to Revelation (Catholicism) or Revelation (Roman Catholic Church), if it is demed appropriate to fork out the catholic POV from the main revelation article. That said, the article lacks wikification and formating. There is inappropriate use of the 2nd person. The Catholic POV is still overbearing. This article has not been converted per the WP:MISSING guidelines. I am not sure if that is reason enough to delete an article. I personally feel that this is a very poor example of a wikipedia article and would rather it be worked up a lot before having gone live.--Andrew c 22:22, 7 July 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.