Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal Divinity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Speedy delete per CSD G1 (patent nonsense) and A1 (no context). WaltonAssistance! 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eternal Divinity

Eternal Divinity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: This is not an article, it is a religious essay, and an absurd one at that. This is not a valid speedy reason. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. —— Eagle101Need help? 06:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete That may not be a valid speedy reason, but nonsense is. The whole thing sounds like an insane diatribe that invokes random theological terms and irrelevant legal principles. So tagged. Deranged bulbasaur 07:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per the bulbasaur. David Mestel(Talk) 08:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not nonsense per se, but obviously original research and soapboxing. -- lucasbfr talk 08:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lucasbfr. It may appear to be nonsense, but plenty of religions have adherents whom create fallacious arguments on the spot. Nonsense means that it does not have any logical (or perhaps thematic) consistency whatsoever, and this does. Still, delete. --Edwin Herdman 09:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as soapboxing/Original research. Note the usual 'violation of free speech' nonsense on the talk page from Sfd101. J Milburn 10:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic POV essay, to put it kindly. BTLizard 11:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Deranged bulbasaur. JJL 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Religious screed whose every sentence could be appended with "Yeah, says who?" tomasz. 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - per SNOW; I can think of various speedy deletion categories (like no claims of notability, and, yes, nonsense [a "religious" article quoting the Sopranos?]) but I see from the edit history that these tags have been repeatedly removed. Still, there's not a chance that this article will ever be coherent or notable. I can't even think of any other content that might be headed under this title that isn't already covered in other, better, entries. ◄Zahakiel► 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR nonsense. ---Cathal 15:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete irrelevant essay, POV. ---Javit 16:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft, despite creator's assertions to the contrary. JuJube 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • WTF. Whatever it is, delete it before it starts to spread. I like this argument: "To delete this page is a violation of the Freedom of Speech." Great argument. Herostratus 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete immediately. Unencyclopedic. --Guinnog 22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as poorly written OR with little or no encyclopedic content. "Articles" like this are an embarrasment :( Doc Tropics 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced original research/POV essay. Go ahead and proclaim this on a street corner all you want, but Wikipedia is (part of) an organization that allows you to easily publish your work. You must abide by the local rules. Just like I can't go into my local mall, get up on a soapbox, start delivering a sermon, and passing out pamphlets without their permission, you can't do it here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I ought to remind you of the "talk" page on this entry: To delete this page is a violation of the Freedom of Speech. Furthermore, this page might be religion to some, but it is protected under the international application of the Freedom of Religion. Conclusively, this page is a verification of a meditation. Sfd101 04:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Sir, if you are referring to the freedom of speech provisions of the United States Constitution, I would like to remind you of two things. One, the first word of this amendment is "congress". Read the amendment if you don't believe me. Second, Wikipedia is, amongst many other things, not a body of government - and therefore, this amendment does not apply to Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. ◄Zahakiel► 14:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • democracy Sfd101 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • government Sfd101 21:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • organization Sfd101 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • .org Sfd101 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • throttle Sfd101 21:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • peace Sfd101 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • anarchy Sfd101 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • authority Sfd101 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • power Sfd101 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia Sfd101 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • discussion Sfd101 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you're trying to say there, sfd101 (I reformatted those links), but freedom of speech doesn't apply to Wikipedia. You license your text to the community and we form a consensus what to do with it. The submission page says
  • By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License.
  • If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
This page does not meet our guidelines. If you wish to write about your religious views or experiences, there are other places to publish that sort of thing. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as essay. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe a speedy. I can't even call this an essay, it's more something of a stream of consciousness brain dump. A meditation, maybe. But this is not the place for dumping this. I'd almost say it's patent nonsense, but I'm not entirely sure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • discussion is not debate. Sfd101 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

discussion |disˈkə sh ən| noun the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas : the proposals are not a blueprint but ideas for discussion | the specific content of the legislation was under discussion. • a conversation or debate about a certain topic : discussions about environmental improvement programs. • a detailed treatment of a particular topic in speech or writing. ORIGIN Middle English (denoting judicial examination): via Old French from late Latin discussio(n-), from discutere ‘investigate’ (see discuss ). Sfd101 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

debate |diˈbāt| noun a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. • an argument about a particular subject, esp. one in which many people are involved : the national debate on abortion | there has been much debate about prices. verb [ trans. ] argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner : the board debated his proposal | the date when people first entered America is hotly debated. • [with clause ] consider a possible course of action in one's mind before reaching a decision : he debated whether he should leave the matter alone or speak to her. PHRASES be open to debate be unproven; require further discussion. under debate being discussed or disputed. DERIVATIVES debater noun ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin dis- (expressing reversal) + battere ‘to fight.’ Sfd101 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • note that the origins of the two words are relevant: a discussion is an investigation, while a debate is of battling, or fighting. Sfd101 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the difference is that a discussion is a conversation, not a conversion, while a debate is an argument. Sfd101 21:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement <<This is not an article, it is a religious essay, and an absurd one at that.>> is argumentative, not in keeping with a discussion. This statement was made as objection to this page on Eternal Divinity. Futhermore, the statement is not in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia. Note that the violation is to require suspension of the individual (and all their avitars) on Wikipedia, moderator or not. Sfd101 21:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sfd101 21:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


just because you do not understand a meditation does not make it nonsense.

Sfd101 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

as per lucasbfr, this is not nonsense.

Sfd101 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

as per -Edwin Herdman, Eternal Divinity does have logic. You just don't accept the premises. Valid on case of logic. Sfd101 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

screed Sfd101 21:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of the history removals. Note that the Sopranos are a valid cultural movement, as well as a documentation of a valid cultural movement. To reference the Sopranos television entertainment is academic, not nonsense, nor a screed (and as there is no entry for "screed" on wikipedia, perhaps you ought to enter one.)

Sfd101 21:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As original complaint is not valid, as per eagle101, and as Eternal Divinity is not nonsense, as per lucasbfr, I move to have the Eternal Divinity entry restored. Sfd101 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Javit, if you feel it is irrelevant, you might want to note any other entries in Wikipedia that are irrelevant also. Furthermore, just because you feel it is irrelevant, does not make it so.

Sfd101 21:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

move to have the term religioncruft stricken from the record, as slanderous, as dishonorable, as not of discussion. likewise, move to have all utilization of term "religioncruft" reviewed upon Wikipedia. furthermore, as per definitions, will review wikidictionary for reference, as so doing will eliminate said entry ("religioncruft") as invalid. additionally, move to have utilizers of term "religion*****" removed from Wikipedia, as per harrasment clauses. likewise, move to have all applications of Wikipedic rules reviewed, as per Wikipedia policy stating that all rules are to be abandoned in case of verification. Sfd101 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

as "religion*****" does not exist in the Wiktionary, it can not be held as idomatic. Move for exhonoration of sfd101. Sfd101 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete for A1, supported by WP:OR. I don't believe this qualifies as nonsense, as it appears to be a "Religious Excogitation." I'm assuming the good faith of the author, but I still think WP:SNOW applies as well. LaughingVulcan 00:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Make it go away. Elrith 01:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't help but wonder if this is the same guy who posted all that nonsense on Talk:Azrael about how his name really was AzReal and he was an Egyptian god. These "arguments" have the same barely coherent tone. JuJube 02:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Whatever he's doing, the account is a single purpose account. He's created this article we're modifying and a few others that seem to have been speedied (see his talk page and note the bleeding links) and discussed on his talk page rather heavily with just as much rhetoric. Honestly, this person seems to take the "baffle them with bullshit" approach to editing Wikipedia, thus his rather prominent implementation of the WP:IAR link. To me, he's evidently the sort of editor who believes that IAR means that the rules are only made to be broken and you can do whatever you want to Wikipedia. Thusly, I can only assume bad faith and that this editor account is a vandal account. Upgrading to speedy delete as vandalism.
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.