Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Woodrow (2nd nomination)

 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 No consesus; kept. Dan100 (Talk) 10:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Woodrow

 * Tally (delete/keep/merge) (9/6/0)
 * Just to note that this vote needs to be closed and their is no consensus to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on July 30, 2005. I closed the VfD on August 7, 2005 with a consensus to delete, and deleted the article. That VfD can be found below. User:M-filecastle brought it to my attention that the article had undergone a significant rewrite and that the existing VfD might not reflect actual consensus. (All delete votes were cast before the rewrite.) I investigated, and found that the article had indeed been revised extensively (from a stub to a decent-sized article). In the interests of fairness, I have agreed to re-submit the article to VfD for a new consensus. I am not voting in this nomination, and I will not close the new result; it will be left to the descretion of a different admin. Essjay ·  Talk 04:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC) How notable does one have to be? Yahoo has over 11,000 hitson his name alone... When entered as woodrow+babylon over 80,000 hits are found! He has sold over 500,000 books. An addendum can be made to reflect the influence he holds on this subject. He (Woodrow) refutes the idea that Christianity developed from pagan roots (having recanted of holding the same view) and is duly noted as a well researched 'critic' on the Original Linked Page. Wikipedians should be able to see WHY he is critical of the false allegations Hislop made. Original criticism(s) of this page were primarily that it was not very well written and disjointed. The article has since been totally re-written (with the help of others here) and polished so as to better reflect the encyclopedic format. The 're-written' version of the article is found here: Ralph Woodrow --M-filecastle 06:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC) This is not even about the Woodrow's book: 98% of the article is criticism of Hilsop
 * Delete, as vanity, I'd say. Author of 18 books -- but all published by his own vanity press.  I'd be willing to reconsider if someone could demonstrate that others look to those works as somehow seminal or influential.  But that's missing from the article. Nandesuka 04:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)d
 * Delete, non notable. Claim to fame is the industry of his own vanity press. Sdedeo 05:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep ~ This man is a 'link' from another Wikipedia page. He is well known and often quoted in religious discussions.
 * Keep -- this presents a clear (if slightly non-concise) reason why a published writer has "recanted" from early views. If someone, reading his early work but unacquainetd with the later, were to come here, they would be informed and allowed to view his works in perspective.  It also saves an article on "Hislop -- why he was wrong" --Simon Cursitor 07:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Very little encyclopaedic content, which threatens ideological bias. The wiki should reflect knowledge, not shape it. Needs another major overhaul to earn my keep vote. The JPS 12:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep In terms of Amazon sales, the best rank I could find for one of his books was about ~100k, for another text not mentioned at all in the article. Works like "The Babylon Connection" score slightly lower, around 150k, which is on the low end for notable authors. The theological debate does deserve coverage, but this bio page may not be the best place to do that, and a heavy cleanup is still clearly needed. However, messy writing isn't really a qualification for deletion. --170.2.52.28 17:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Logged out mysteriously. --Icelight 17:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not even about the Woodrow's book: 98% of the article is criticism of Hilsop i.e., propaganda of a single POV and promotion of a nonnotable person: 533 unique google hits, most of which from lists at book sale websites. mikka (t) 00:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV/non-encyclopedic. -- Etacar11   00:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Again? Please. The encyclopedic content of the rewritten article boils down to the following: *:Ralph Woodrow is an evangelical Christian minister. [Dates and bio-info here.] He formerly supported the theories of Hislop as to the syncretic or pagan origins of Catholicism and wrote a book saying so, but has since changed his views and written another book saying so. [Links to ISBNs of Woodrow's two books here, and to Woodrow's external site.] End article. Anything more than that, including minutiae about the shape of manna, ziggurats, and the like, is OR, rant, and crank. The persistent proponent of this article does himself no favors with his idiosyncratic prose and layout style. Sorry, the good Pastor Woodrow is not the Venerable Bede or even L. Ron Hubbard, and his theories are just not notable beyond the above. Delete, again. -EDM 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Anything more than that, including minutiae about the shape of manna, ziggurats, and the like, is OR, rant, and crank. The persistent proponent of this article does himself no favors with his idiosyncratic prose and layout style."

The Original Link (found on Hislops Two Babylons Wikipedia page) finds Hislops ideas discussed in minutiae covering these very same topics. So the original article (with false assumption in detail) is appropriate, yet its crticism, by one of its most noted detractors is not? The purpose of the 'minutiae' in the original argument is to lay out the very case that Christianitys roots are pagan. The purpose of the 'minutiae' in the rebuttal is to lay out the very case that Hislop was in error. The Woodrow article IS ABOUT HISLOPs BOOK because the very link that references him (Woodrow) distinguishes him as a critic of it. Woodrows second book is about the VERY SUBJECT of refuting Hislop.

Assuming that the value of the need to view the rebuttal is found worthy of 'Wikipedians' perusal, undoubtedly Woodrows page will ultimately be expanded and 're-written' further so as to give an even more in depth understanding of the errors of Hislop.

Just as the referenced Venerable Bede finds aspects of his life, works, struggles, and ideas ... so would any 'completed' article on Woodrow. Many Wikipedian articles, within themselves, and through links, show both PRO and CON views of the subject. The article on Woodrow is following in the established Wikipedian style and allows the reader to understand how one set of ideas may have been falsely arrived at. (and WHY)

Is it 'more appropriate' to take these very same Woodrow facts and examples and incorporate them into the body of the Hislop articles, or more reasonable to provide the link to the Woodrow page that discusses them. --M-filecastle 21:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel tempted to use the sofixit template. Just because an article is in a very poor and uncomprehensive state at the moment does not mean that it cannot be improved. If you don't believe me, see the following diff on MDAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Reread what you wrote. Striking previous message... I feel that this is a fair point! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please make comments above this notice to avoid breaking the discussion with the transcluded prior VfD.
 * Keep notable in his criticism of Hislop's The Two Babylons. Though his writing is probably not the best to actually read (lots of italics and exclamation marks), it is still notable and probably the most lucid critique of Hislop's absurdities. He has also written several other widely read books on Easter and Christmas. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. How widely is his work actually read outside the narrow confines of evangelical Protestantism? OK, he rebuts the views of Alexander Hislop, which apprear very fringe to me. How can anyone become notable by refuting a fringe viewpoint? The article makes no attempt at establishing notability. Pilatus 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonably notable figure in a reasonably notable religious debate. We have articles on more obscure religious figures in Wikipedia. The article can always be improved. Fire Star 04:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Usual cleanup rather delete issue. Pcb21| Pete 08:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's a minister and he's written a few books. Does this make him notable? No. &rarr;Raul654 22:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Still reads like a vanity page/flamewar cocktail. Toss it.  Dottore So 22:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A pastor who withdrew his support of a 19th century crackpot religious tract. Not too notable, IMO. Pilatus 18:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and has written several other books about various issues. Just clarifying this - the article doesn't really mention it. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * article has been incorporated into Linked Page
 * 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.