Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcendentalist Theology

I think our old friend Kurt Kawohl is back with a massive, POV and nearly unreadable entry. There's a Google link with his name at the top of the page which, quite frankly, turns up nothing. Same anon has made vast edits to "transcendentalism" and similar articles. - Lucky 6.9 23:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) My literary qualities are sorely wanting. Complete editing rather than deletion would be appreciated.Kurt Kawohl
 * This is horribly unsalvagable. If it is a valid topic, a personal essay is not required.  Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 23:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Reads like he is telling you how it is. Would make a good article if an expert could make some serious revisions.  Delete Jaberwocky6669
 * Delete as original research, unless the contributor or someone else can provide verifiable references showing this is a well-established concept. Presently the article presents no references or external links, it's just all ex cathedra. "Transcendentalist theology" in quotes gets only 28 Google hits, it's apparently not well-established terminology, either in reference to either the Concord, Mass crowd or to the TM folks. Dpbsmith 02:00, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Tough: The topic is very much encyclopedic, if we're talking about Transcendentalism and not TM.  Transcendentalism was a theological/philosophical movement of the US in the early 19th c. that grew out of the Congregationalism and Universalism movements in the northeast.  It was quasi-Deist.  I'm sure everyone who read Ralph Waldo Emerson got bored by hearing about it.  At any rate, that transcendentalism is notable and deserves an article.  This one is a personal essay.  I'd love for the name to be kept, but not this article. Geogre 02:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * So why doesn't someone edit it? See Transcendentalism Today
 * Looks like a candidate to merge and redirect into Transcendentalism, an article that could probably use some expansion. Current content reads like original research with a strong POV. Rossami 03:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, delete, delete. He does love to plaster his name on the thing, doesn't he?  RickK 04:06, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rossami, this subject is relevant but does not need its own page - redirect to Transcendentalism. Don't merge though - it's a lost cause. Rdsmith4 | Talk 05:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Hoo, boy, another "neospiritualistic" sermon posing as an article. This Kurt Kawohl guy signs his writings more often than Gene Ray.  Or, if he doesn't, then the person who created Transcendentalist Theology must be his biggest fan.  Original research (and original screeds) do not belong in the Wikipedia; we should delete on those grounds alone.  As for merging with transcendentalism, what does a new-age personal opinion have to do with an intellectual movement started by Immanuel Kant in 1836?  There is nothing to merge.  --Ardonik 11:43, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Transcendentalism is is a conglomeration of similar, but diverse ideas about literature, religion, culture and philosophy. Religious irrationality today is the main cause of terrorism & killings worldwide. Encyclopedia means information on many subjects, not history. Does a new concept automatically deserve censorship?
 * Censorship? How I wish people would stop tossing that word around in here!  Who is censoring you, suppressing your ideas, forbidding your edits, making you unwelcome?  Or do your writings automatically deserve an article in the Wikipedia, never mind the community's opinion?  Given my contempt for censorship in the real world, I can't say I appreciate being accused of such in this virtual world.
 * Back to the topic at hand. Kurt, I did not find your article to be even remotely encyclopedic; that does not mean that it does not deserve to exist.  If you wrote it to urge rationality and introspection in religion, then I applaud your efforts; such perspectives are sorely needed in this irrational world.  But the Wikipedia is not the place for such things.  Get a webpage and write your opinions there; I have a webpage, too, and that's where I keep my own opinions!  If you want the ease of editing your webpage as a wiki, try OddMuse.  Its Free and its syntax most closely resembles that of the MediaWiki projects.  --Ardonik 01:55, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete; POV essay. Get a personal website, Kurt. (Interestingly enough, Transcendentalist Theology does not actually wikilink to transcendentalism!) --Sean Curtin 05:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Revised 7-31-04 (Please reconsider) POV has been removed & it can be edited further to make it acceptable. .Kurt Kawohl
 * Dear Kurt, There are already articles on the subject, Ralph Waldo Emerson's work is certainly notable, but any expansion on them will have to be much more neutral to survive the VfD peer review process. The article in question isn't reporting "Transcendentalist theology", it is asserting it. For example, you state in boldface that "Transcendentalist theology perceives that..." at one point. Using perceive (esp. in boldface) is a positive assertion, preaching, not a neutral observation, reporting. The words claim or purport would work better. As the article stands today, I will vote to delete. Fire Star 15:56, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I thank everyone for their advise. I have again made corrections & respectfully request that edits be made by anyone who wishes to have anything changed therein.Kurt Kawohl
 * It's not the style or little errors. It's the entire approach and content. Kurt, we went through this the last time you tried to add this material. Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:24, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)