Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpiritWorld


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

SpiritWorld

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article appears to be an attempt at a novel synthesis of various strains of New Age beliefs, borrowing from indigenous belief systems from all over the world. In my opinion the article is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy pertaining to no original research WP:OR and that both its style and tone are unencyclopedic. The article also contains a number of images that are claimed to be "free for use" by the editor that submitted them, but in checking the website that is purportedly their source, the National Library of New Zealand digital collection I discovered that in fact *none* of the images are to be used without adhering to certain terms and conditions prior to using them. Deconstructhis (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate. The non-free images should be discussed at IfD rather than here, and criticism of the article's style and tone is not grounds for deletion. (If you don't like the style and tone of an article, improve it.)  However, I believe the WP:OR argument will be fatal to the article in its current form.
 * "SpiritWorld" is a very plausible search term, and therefore it should not be a redlink. Therefore this article should be a redirect or disambiguation page.
 * On balance I feel any relevant content should be merged to the various cultural and religious articles involved, and this should become a disambiguation page leading to those articles.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  13:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip on the complaints regarding the images, I'll keep that in mind for next time, although if you examine the talk page of the article you'll discover why I think that issue should be dealt with ASAP. As far as I can tell, "SpiritWorld", the title of the article, is a self coined neologism and thus shouldn't appear in an article in the encyclopedia at all. In terms of your assessment of "style and tone" not being eligible criteria for deletion, I'd have to disagree, at least in this case. Take the very first paragraph of the article for example, I'd suggest that both its style and tone, make it almost incomprehensible. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I do suggest that you list any images or other non-text content you're concerned about here: WP:IFD.  I find the language in the article a little hard to parse, but I don't agree that it's incomprehensible.  I do agree the article fails WP:NOR.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

kia ora, Deconstruct, S Marshall, The observation was made, on Talk:SpiritWorld by User:Nortonew, that a Spirit_World_(Native-American) article needs to be written ... and I would observe also a Spirit_World_(World Indigenous Oral Tradition) page. And I agree, and hope to lend a hand there in the future. As to the origin of the universal cultural icon of "Spirit World", well I never coined it ... witness 1,480,000 Google entries for that phrase. Clearly this article SpiritWorld can be refined and expanded dramatically, and I and others I am sure will do so ... yet this particular article is not oriented towards a specific regional or cultural focus, but clearly towards the global. {Now that this article is complete enough to attract interest and clear intent, I will reach out to others that have expertise in the subject and suggest they lend a hand at the growth and polishing of the SpiritWorld article. (Should this article name be changed to Spirit_World??)}. I suppose Wikipedia itself would be labeled as "New Age" by many, as would this or any of the native, spiritual, or cultural articles or traditions worldwide. I suppose it depends on who is defining the term New_Age. Here at Wikipedia it is described as largely "Western", in contrast to this SpiritWorld article which is equally Eastern and Oriental, because it is global. As I resided in Aotearoa, New Zealand, for four years ... and my wife is Japanese ... it is not possible or interesting for me to attempt to be 'Western'. arohanui, enfolding love ... Millennium Twain (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no 'world indigenous oral tradition' as such, and to suggest otherwise is an obvious violation of the rule against original synthesis. (For a start, who isn't indigenous to the world?) The various spirit worlds (note two words, no caps) of mythologies from around the world are diverse and distinct, and deserve separate, intellectually rigorous treatment and proper research. If a 'worldwide' article is needed, it should be primarily a disambiguation page to point people to the various specific pages. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as incoherent and unencyclopedic. The topic, whatever it is supposed to be, is completely unclear and amorphous. There is no way to make any judgment on what sources and concepts are appropriate to include or exclude. This kind of essay-like synthesis could easily consist of a hodgepodge of material from areas of religion, mythology, metaphysics, paranormal, superstition, mental illness, quantum physics, meditation, prayer, folklore, et cetera, et cetera. Tim Shuba (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a garbled synthesis. Contains some demonstrably untrue statements too: "The Rigveda... have survived as texts from the 2nd or 1st millennia BC. They were first recorded by scribes perhaps as much as five millennia earlier." (i.e. placing a system of narrative writing in the 6th or 7th millenium BC. See History of writing for why this is untrue). &mdash; BillC talk 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete chaotic, unencyclopedic essay. DGG (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

obvious redirect, if worth keeping, to Spirit world, itself a disambig page. Sticky Parkin 19:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete "...our relationship to all our sister/brother trees...", "Women are said have a most sensitive connection" do I need to read the whole article?  Sp in ni ng  Spark  22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Incomprehensible gobbldygook. Original research Senor Cuete (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete
 * Strong delete - neologism and synthesis. (Oh, and syncretism as well.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:53, 17 March 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.