Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Countenance divine

Add links
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 delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countenance divine[edit]

Countenance divine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a phrase used once by Blake is not a topic for an article Tb (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The page exists as a See Also in And did those feet in ancient time, a Blake poem which uses the phrase. The only other real link to the page is a mistaken link for "countenance" at Jerónima de la Asunción. The page simply defines "countenance" and "divine", offers a vague and unreferenced theological speculation about some roughly panentheistic theory, and a few vague other observations or speculations. It was added to WikiProject Christianity, and rated "stub" and "low importance". Nearly all the edits have either been the addition of bits of unsourced speculation, or maintenance. Tb (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve.andycjp (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliably sourced by the end of this AfD period. This doesn't seem like a genuine doctrine. bd2412 T 03:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I would say just because you don't like the page doesn't mean others won't be interested to read it. Just because you don't have any original thought of your own doesn't mean other people don't. Stick a reference to me and put numbers on it if it makes you happy. There is more to life than studying what already is - there is also creation of the new - without which people like you wouldn't have anything to study in the first place. Barjon (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the "original thought" part that makes it unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:No original research. Perhaps, however, you might be able to find an existing article into which this material can properly be merged. bd2412 T 13:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I see Wikipedia as a universal library of information for all people. It should not be exclusive to scientifically verifiable articles only. It should also incorporate articles containing original thought. To solve the problem, all we need to do is invent a little tag we can apply to paragraphs that states it is original thought. That way people will be quite aware of what they are reading. Then, those who want to study and reference can do so to their hearts content, and those who want to add original ideas can do so to their hearts content. Everyone is happy. That is the way it should be. Barjon (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you see Wikipedia as is really not relevant here; if it doesn't meet our standards for inclusion, we don't include it. Original research is specifically excluded and this is not the place to debate the wisdom of that policy. Tb (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where is the best place to discuss this policy? I think it would make Wikipedia a better place with something as simple as an Original Research tag. Barjon (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, leaning to merge into And did those feet in ancient time, and redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we merged, what text would we keep for the merge? Tb (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:V. The phrase is found all across literature in Google Books. I think this article was meant to find its place at WP:RESCUE, not here. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you have the article say? Is there anybody who talks about the phrase as a subject for discussion in its own right? Or is your argument that any string of English words which occurs frequently is worth an article? Never mind that the vast majority of those books simply reprint Blake's poem. Do any discuss the phrase? Tb (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start over. The basis of the article is the OR attempt to equate use of "countenance" as a verb, meaning approve or tolerate, with the noun, meaning the "face"--see Wiktionary -- OED, as expected, has a number of other uses also. To say that when Blake used it to mean the Face of God is the same as if he used it to mean the Approval of God is something that would need sources, not speculation--and, if dictionaries are any guide, highly unlikely. The various citations above use it in a variety of meanings. I usually try to rescue an article, but when it is based upon an odd but unstated hypothesis, it's better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article expounds upon a phrase from a poem. Poetry is an art and is meant to be left open to interpretation. With the theology, just add tags to say "this article / paragraph is original research based on the views and opinions of the author(s) and may or may not reflect the views and opinions of others". Barjon (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We delete OR, as one of our most consistently applied policies, and the entire article is OR, as you have just confirmed. See WP:NOR. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say keep the article. Add the new OR tags as suggested above, and if and when more specific information becomes available on what Blake was actually thinking when he wrote it, then we can open-up a hardcore can of formal referential material on the article. Barjon (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take your campaign elsewhere to abandon the policy against original research in Wikipedia. Tb (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is an essay on a particular phrase in a well-known poem/hymn, but a somewhat peculiar poet. Possibly redirect to an article on the whole poem. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article contains very little about its subject. If "Countenance divine" is a valid topic for an encyclopaedia, I would expect a list of books, hymns and poems where the exact term has been used, in addition to Blake's use in Jerusalem. I would not expect an article on every phrase used by William Blake in his poetry. It would also expect referenced opinions why the term is important in Christian theology. It should have no personal speculations about what it might mean and certainly no weasel words such as "generally taken to mean". At present there is no evidence that it will progress beyond someone's personal musings. JMcC (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Blake poem is notable, but this phrase isn't. Also the article is entirely unreferenced OR. -- Radagast3 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Countenance_divine&oldid=1137738647"