Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Woodrow

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay ·  Talk 00:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Woodrow
Some sort of screed/rant/POV nonsense. And I used my 700th mainspace edit for this? humblefool&reg; 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete without prejudice against recreation as a legitimate encyclopedia article about this person. I'm guessing that Woodrow is notable enough to have an article about, but nothing from this first-person POV essay is salvageable, and anyone who wants to write such an article should just start over. android  79  04:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. A legitimate article could probably written in this person as he has written a number of religious books. However, this article is in such poor shape that it would be better to start again. owever would vote to keep even a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as personal promotion (sentences like My original book had some valuable information in it... show to me that he's only tryin to promote the book linked at the bottom. drini &#9742; 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Further comment: Notice how the entry is named aafer the author, yet the text is all about the theories in the book. So, as an entry "about the author" it's a very poor one. And about the theory, there's a criteria in the official wikipedia policy at WP:NOTthat states:
 * Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions...
 * which I think that fit 100% into this case. And since it goes agains official policy, it should even bee speedied. drini &#9742; 06:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Vanity, rant, original research, crank. -EDM 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - per the above. --Mysidia 06:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - although syncretism of Osiris, Dionysus, and Tammuz, etc. is widely discussed in the field, this article is an advert for the author, and appallingly laid out - if the book is this badly designed and formatted, I would advise people not to bother trying to read it.     07:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. First person. not notable. Mmmbeer 14:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic article about non-notable figure. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. May warrant a rewrite in neutral third-person language, but I don't think anything in this version is salvageable to an encyclopedic article. ESkog 21:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete autobiography is inherently Vanity/non-verifiable, even if the subject is notable. Of course, this should be without prejudice if someone writes a verifiable encyclopedic article.  IMO, auto-biography should be CSD, but it isn't.  Robert A West 21:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite completely Google gives about 8400 relevent hits, he does seem quite notable. The current article as it stands is just a pointless POV rant, but it should be rewritten with some relevent information. Cyclone49 00:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've gone and attempted to rewrite the article from what I found on that google search, although there was very little salvagable information. If someone who is actually knowladgable about this person expands this it would be very helpful. Cyclone49 00:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been re-written and 'polished'. User:M-filecastle

Comments

 * Comments moved here to clear up votes

This topic should not be deleted.

The subject matter is religion.

Is Humblefool? an editor of this type of topic?

There are a series of articles that suggest that Christianity comes from pagan origins.
 * Such articles are all over the internet and on Wikipedia as well.

The debates on this topic are widespread and involve both Christians (interdenominationally) as well as 'non'believers

Mr. Woodrow originally wrote a book - AGREEING that there are pagan roots to Christianity. It was very popular.

It (his book) took many of its assumptions from earlier works by Alexander Hislop (Wikipedia) as well as his theories regarding The Two Babylons (Wikipedia)

The Wikipedia articles on the above -2- subjects LIST Mr. Woodrow as someone who has argued AGAINST these points of view.

THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION GIVES MR WOODROWS point of view as to why he found his own earlier work, as well as the work of Alexander Hislop, to be fraudulent and in error.

Any reader of this particular subject would have great interest in understanding that Christianity, while it is accused of being from pagan origions, is NOT in fact .... and that the historical facts do not support such a claim. Mr. Woodrow, and his book REFUTE these claims.

ONE OF ITS VERY PROPONENTS (Woodrow) is now one of its critics.

What is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to inform the reader to give them insight into each side of a subject and a broader understanding of the topic.

Wikipedia already LISTS a LINK to RALPH WOODROWS nameas being a critic of the Hislop - Two Babylons theory.

The LEAST Wikipedia could offer its readers is what Mr Ralph Woodrows actual thoughts on the matter are!

Micheal@filecastle.com

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle) drini &#9742; 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Also: the addition of this section was user's first edit:

Much of what is in the original articles by Alexander Hislop (Two Babylons) are unsubstantiated and are no more than his opinion. Apparently Alexander Hislops saving grace (here) is that he is long dead.

Mr Woodrow is a known critic (and one-time exponent) of those very same 'opinions'.

His POV or 'opinion' is RELEVANT for that very reason. And although some may quible with his syntax or 'phrase-ology' ... I would argue that the very VALUE of his words are because of JUST THAT because they ARE his words ...

When other peoples thoughts and ideas are recorded here - is it incumbent upon the gallery to edit their thoughts ?

Were there an article on Princess Dianna's criticism of the press (here) - would we correct her statements for grammer or use of analogy?

In an article on the Pope, (here) would we edit his remarks so as to reflect the Protestant view?

The views expressed are those of Mr Woodrow - any reader of such a text link would understand FROM HIS WORDS that what they were reading WAS HIS VIEW ...

Isn't that the point ?

Michael@filecastle.com

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle drini &#9742; 05:57, 30 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page..