Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God complex

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 KEEP -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God complex

A POV essay which even admits "There are few academic works specifically addressing God complexes..." Theoretically a worthwhile article on "God complex" could exist, one that limited itself to an NPOV assessment of what little academic work there is on the subject. This article is not it; this is POV essayage about "arrogant individuals prone to stupid actions" and how this has something to do with how "wealth and power is consolidated into the hands of individuals", quotes from Forrest Gump, and external links to Lyndon LaRouche publications. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - but delete incoherent section on 'man-made disasters' (I've since done this). This seems like a genuine psychological subject - and although the article suffers from pop-psychology - it is not beyond cleaning up by someone knowledgeable. --Doc (?) 18:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep When the Beltway Sniper was in the news, it was widely speculated he had a God complex. I think the term deserves an explanation. CanadianCaesar 19:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This subject is worthy of an article -- but this is not it. It is inappropriate and vauge.
  • Last unsigned vote by 86.129.100.225 CanadianCaesar 20:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - If the article's bad, then fix it. Deleting won't help anything--the subject itself is, after all, totally encyclopedic. Kurt Weber 20:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, is it, though? I mean, I didn't major in psychology in either my undergraduate or my graduate work, so maybe the concept of a "God complex" has a specific defined meaning in actual psychology and I don't know about it -- but this is pure pop-psychology, as hinted by the inappropriate linking of "groupthink" (another real term widely co-opted and robbed of its original meaning by pop psychology). Even if there is theoretically an article to be written about the real thing, is keeping this POV essay around a step towards the real thing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per CanadianCaesar, but hope the expansion tag works. -Splash 23:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this has the makings for a good article and the complex is widely thought of, if not widely researched. Just needs expansion ArrowmanCoder 00:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with the stipulation that it should be later Redirected to an article on an "official" (APA or otherwise) version of this complex. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand/cleanup as necessary. Would tie or maybe merge well with narcissism, but the term itself has merit. Cwolfsheep 06:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "God complex" is not a psychological term; it is a slang expression. Unlike (say) fuck, it is not a linguistically notable slang expression. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is likely to mislead readers into believing that "God complex" is a psychological term, or refers to some actual mental process that has been studied. Therefore, it doesn't belong here. --FOo 15:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete.First of all this article fails to define what a God is. A god, from the view of monotheism, is very different from a god in a polytheistic religion. Therefore without an accurate and detailed description of what a god is, there cannot be and accurate and detailed definition of a "God Complex". Second, the article admits that "there are few academic works specifically addressing god complexes". Without credible sources from peer reviewed psych. journals, this article's credibility should immediately come into question. Third, the article fails to make ANY meaningful point at all. The best example being "French Enlightenment... is considered by some to have led to the reign of terror that afflicted all of Europe beginning in the late 18th century". The article that is cited uses the Napoleonic wars as an example of a reign of terror that over came Europe. But if war is our only standard by which to judged reigns of terror then life in Europe before the enlightenment would also fit the definition of a reign of terror. In fact, by this logic all of human history has been one reign of terror after the next not just Europe during the enlightenment. Because the statement “reign of terror” is so vague and can be applied to almost any society in any time period it fails to make any point at all.

This article is just bad and is not worth saving; just tear it down and start again.

--swimguy112 14:26, 29 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.