Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spritual view of history


 * 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.  jj137  ♠ 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Spritual view of history

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:OR as attested to by the originator of the article as shown here. Shoessss | Chat  21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Don't Delete  I wrote the definition for Wikipedia of A Spritual View of History. Am grateful for all comments. I believe with edits this document may be brought to Wiki standards which I am working on and invite anyone to join in the effort. I would be grateful of this extra time to make these edits and address the issues brought forward. Please feel free to send any comments to my talk page. Bphagan (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The term may be notable, but the content is pure OR; someone might recreate it later with references. --- tqbf  21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I was sorely tempted to speedy delete this as nonsense. This is a rambling WP:OR discourse. I don't see how this can be more than an OR essay.  Dloh  cierekim  22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but not nonsense, for it is clear what the guy is trying to say, whatever one thinks of the value of the content. But it is merely a summary of the author's website. DGG (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete : utter nonsense, completely non-notable per WP:N, not sourced per WP:V and clearly original research in violation of WP:NOR. Mh29255 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Aside from being a synthesis of information, this article inherently speaks from a non-neutral perspective. This article (or rather, this essay) does not attempt to address the subject of how history has been looked at from a spiritual perspective, throughout the world and throughout history, and the impact this has had on society (which would probably be a pretty good article if there were a established notability of the subject). Rather, this article actually attempts to analyze history from a "spiritual perspective". This is inherently biased because (1) in order to examine something from a particular perspective, any perspective, you must adopt a particular non-neitral viewpoint, and more importantly (2) any time you present an analysis on anything, you are presenting an opinion, or an original viewpoint relating to the subject. This may be the grounds for an essay, but not for an encyclopedia article. (also, although this may be a bit besides the point, the article's title is really a misnomer, as the article discusses history from the viewpoint of Christian mythology, which is definitely not the same thing as spirituality). Calgary (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Politely Delete per WP:OR. I appreciate User:Bphagan's wish to create something that hasn't been seen before, but "original research" essays don't stay permanently on Wikipedia.  Even when it's interesting, any one person's own "view of history" is not encyclopedia material.  It would be different if there was a book called The Spiritual View of History that had been published and had been notable enough to be praised and criticized by other noteworthy commentators (there probably has been a book with that title, come to think of it).  Don't let this experience discourage you from contributing.  You write well, and I hope you'll continue to do so.  However, one of Wikipedia's rules is that "original research" (in other words, one's own observations, or one's own synthesis of information) cannot be the basis for an entire article.  I've been in this about six months now, and I not only know more about the rules (than I did 6 mos. ago), I also have an appreciation of why they exist.  Save your work to your hard drive, don't feel too bad if it doesn't stay up.  Trust me, this is not the end, but just the beginning of your contributions to Wikipedia.  Mandsford (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whatever it is it is not an encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete Here is my response to address the issues brought up with regard to this topic and I have also made some minor edits to a Spiritual view of history.

This first issue addressed is that a Spiritual View of History constitutes original research. The issues of nonsense, verifiability and notability will be addressed in turn.

"Wikipedia does not publish original research." "All material must be verifiable using a reliable published source." Or, "Wikipedia is not a place to publish... original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly supports the information as it is presented." Or, to "forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research", or "drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research."

A Spiritual View of History does not constitute original research because the material presented, the statement of Benedict XVI is verifiable since it appears in a reliable published source. (See citation footnote #2 - Catholic News Service, Castel Gandolfo, Italy 8/15/2007). Information is provided directly related to the topic of the article and directly supports the information as it is presented. The information provided does not deviate from the topic of the article nor does it deviate from supporting the information presented. No claims are made not directly supported by the sources. The claims of the source are far reaching both as to past and future history. Claims made do not exceed those bounds and conclusions drawn are evident in the reference again as to both past and present historical events. The reference itself states conclusions of enormous scope "into existence once again in the Nazi... dictatorships and the dictatorship of Stalin" and as to the present the reference states "the red dragon exists in new and different ways." There are conclusions that are part of the reference itself, to extend these conclusions or discuss their effects and consequences provided they are supported by the reference and evident from the source does not constitute original research.

If Lucifer has involved himself in relations between nations in the past and does so still "in new and different ways" if there is any knowledge to be gained in that area, how does that constitute "nonsense"? To toss him off lightly as though he has little or nothing to do with the development of human history - is that wise? According to a Gallup poll in 2003 (source the New York Times, 3/4/2003, Nicholas Kristof, "God, Satan and the Media"), sixty eight percent of the American people believe in the devil. If focusing on him, on his objectives, on his plans, on his future ability to achieve his goals - how does that constitute nonsense?

As to the question of verifiability "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia", is verifiability not truth? "only assertions, theories, opinions and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia". The criteria has been met.

How prevalent is the belief that Lucifer does involve himself actively in human affairs both personal and public? This position is a majority opinion and can be "substantiated with reference to commonly accepted reference texts, " which is the test for majority acceptance. The reference text, of course, is the Bible and irrespective of ones beliefs it does cite time after time Lucifer's involvement with humans and the human race. There are no publications of note stating any significant minority views or "prominent adherents of a minority viewpoint" on this issue.

As to notability, a topic is presumed notable "if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media" and "substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence". Sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject matter appear time after time in the most widely read book in the world - the Bible. Irrespective of one's views of the Bible, Lucifer is very much a notable subject in it as well as numerous other sources. He has always had long-term notability and he appears in almost all paper encyclopedias.

Admittedly some conclusions in a Spiritual View of History appear to be a personal essay, but when carefully examined these conclusions are drawn based only on the original reference or on other sources and do not constitute personal conclusions. The Democratic Peace Theory, already extensively covered in Wikipedia, explains that if strong stable democracies are extensively established throughout the world then dictatorships, a major cause of "terror and violence" are reduced in number and effect.

When Lucifer shifts his take over attempts to weaker nations, that conclusion is evident from the original reference to "new and different ways". The fact that he was behind both the Nazi and Stalinist attempts to expand and destroy democracy and the fact that he still is attempting to reach that same goal in "new and different ways" is within the bounds of the original reference. If the Democratic Peace Theory is correct then it holds that the spread of democracy throughout the world has the most promise of bringing peace to the world. This conclusion is gained by a simple review of the theory itself. Bphagan (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment You infer a lot from a few statements, in hopes that you will persuade us to agree with your view of Satan's control of world affairs. Sorry, Wikipedia is nobody's personal bulletin board.  Mandsford (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment – Whooo…are you saying the article is notable because you mention Lucifer in your piece. If that is the case, I want an article about me.  My first name is George and since George is the first name of the First President of the United States, and there are numerous, verifiable and reliable articles about  George - I should be able to claim notability. Shoessss |  Chat  23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment --- can I change my vote to "strong delete and hail Satan"? --- tqbf  01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - personal essay, isn't an encyclopedia article. Addhoc (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Polite Delete per WP:NOT. This is an essay. I suggest that the user who created it saves it on a subpage before it is deleted. -- Shark face  217  20:56, 30 December 2007 (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.