Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book (2nd nomination)

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. The debate about whether the book is a religious text or a work of fiction is academic. (And it might be both, depending on your opinion about such things). That notwithstanding, the discussion sufficiently demonstrated that the collection of terms in this glossary have no notability outside the book itself, and this article only served as a study guide for readers of the book (or pupils of the religion) , which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. SPA input was ignored. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book[edit]

WP:NOT... well, WP:NOT for this, anyway. A list of terms used in one rather culty book, with no independent sourcing at all. I don't think we do unsourced in-universe fictional glossaries. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While there are different POVs about the fiction/nonfiction status of the book, we would all do well to review WP:WAF, which has applicable suggestions in any case.

Delete glossary of a minor book. JJL (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has really changed since the prior AfD, and glossaries are still acceptable content. Moreover, the Urantia Book claims to be a religious scripture. The validity of its proposed revelation is beside the point, but calling it "in-universe fiction" strikes me as seriously misguided, evidence of a positivist bias, and mildly uncivil to boot. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the Urantia Book claims to be a religious scripture Is there a religious exception to standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding sourcing , notability, and encyclopedic merit that I overlooked somewhere? --Calton | Talk 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Religious trivia, at best, for the religiously trivial. --Calton | Talk 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-argued nom by Guy. FCYTravis (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Started out neutral, looking at this out of pure curiosity, but I have decided to vote Keep after reading the article and some of the non-arguments presented above. The Urantia Book is sufficiently notable to have its own (quite lengthy) article. This is a legitimate spin-off from that article and is clearly too long to be part of the main article. There are no policies or guidelines that prohibit glossaries in Wikipedia - even glossaries of individual books - and there are plenty of precedents in Portal:Contents/List of glossaries. The sourcing in this glossary could certainly be improved, but that is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smerdis, but per Guy this needs to be hacked down and sourced... but that isn't solved by deletion. Wikipedia allows glossaries; see WP:LIST. I would agree if this were merely fiction, but the Urantia thing is apparently not merely fiction, it is recognized as a religion albeit a fringe one. See, for instance, its inclusion in Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality, a published encyclopedia of religions. I can't get behind treating a fringe religion as the same thing as a work of fiction. Mango juice^talk 17:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (add: or redirect): OK I'll chime in. Fails WP:V (see WP:SELFPUB), WP:NPOV, WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:RED, and probably WP:C (don't have proof of that last). Can you believe none of that came up in prior AFD? Look, you must pick one: either fictional universe, or minority religious view of extant universe. If you pick the first, you can ramble on but with the big headnote "fictional"; if you pick the second you avoid the headnote but you must allow vast-majority POVs such as that Adam and Eve are not from "Jerusem"-- and you must use the geographical name chosen by the vast majority of its English-speaking inhabitants: not "Urantia", but "Earth". The author of this material wants it both ways. Delete without prejudice to a real article of same name, which would run something like Flat Earth Society#Physics of a Flat Earth: "Adam and Eve: a couple claimed to have come to Earth from the alleged astronomical phenomenom 'Jerusem' <interlink provided to elsewhere in article> about 38,000 years ago to interbreed with existing humans and improve the species. The Torah, the Bible, and the Qur'an claim that Adam and Eve were instead the first man and woman created by God. There is no evidence of extraterrestrial life that has been widely accepted by the scientific community." (I hardly believe I took the time to write that.) Note also how little change between its first and latest versions, mostly dabs and links-- indicating a one-time published disquisition, not an open-source minority view of the universe. You'd think those who wish us to consider the Urantia Book concepts would take advantage of the wiki by cross-linking within the article, but instead redlinks are solicited and the editors invite us to consider Urantia Adam to equal WP Adam. Folks, I'm open-minded, but obey the policies. Sorry-- and thanks Guy! John J. Bulten (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you explain where the COI is ? I count over 20 different editors who have contributed to this article in the last 12 months. Are you saying most of these editors are conflicted ? Gandalf61 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not in the number of editors, but perhaps I should change it to WP:SPA. See my link above that most of the editors just disambiguated and linked. The article was slapped here in mostly its present form some time ago by Wazronk, a WP:SPA in its third year. (Not an immediate problem there, I'm an SPA myself, these are in fact my first edits outside the "single purpose".) Wazronk admitted "I've tried to pare the definitions down to their most basic essentials" and "Sometimes it's easy because the book itself provides a clear concise definition" when making that initial edit, which indicates heavy reliance on some (perhaps copyrighted) POV text itself. So the current text is almost identical to an initial edit made by a committed SPA. I don't have proof of links between Wazronk and Urantia Foundation, so that argument should be modified, as it relies basically on Wazronk's presumed committed following of the Foundation, as reflected in the article lead soliciting Wikipedians to read the book (its TOC) with inappropriate external links. However, keep in mind that as is, the article cannot stand because the SPA nature and the failure of other elders to filter it has led to chronic NPOV. If during this AFD someone should do the masterwork of scaling the whole mess back according to my comments here, it might not need redirection, but I would probably argue it would still need merging. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, as the article on The Urantia Book says, the original text is in the public domain in the USA and internationally; an attempt to renew the copyright was held invalid. Wikisource has the whole thing here. It can be copied verbatim extensively without violating anyone's valid copyright claim. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, there is no copyright issue, it is a public domain book.

John Bulten, it's true I have had a limited involvement on wikipedia. But I don't have anything to do with the Urantia religion (or "movement", whatever it is) much less any organization. Some people like yourself have looked at where I've edited and seen that I've been essentially a SPA on this topic, but haven't bothered to look at how I've edited. Most of my edits are in opposition to wishes of religious believers who are always coming by; opposing them to maintain WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV is by and large the very reason why I have as many edits as I do on the topic. (For instance, seeing as I strip out the link spam of Urantia Foundation (see here), it makes no sense that I'm affiliated with them). The reason for the external links was to point to the book not the foundation's website. It could point to wikisource all the same (The Urantia Book wasn't on it when this article was made). The reason for links to other articles instead of intra-article links is that I didn't know that could be done or that it would be preferable. If it is preferable, surely that's not a big deal to change. The glossary isn't meant to be read as anything more than simply a presentation of how the book uses and defines certain major recurring terms. Wazronk (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I'm surprised we have so many glossaries. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, also because of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This sort of list would work well if someone were to start a Urantia Wikia site, though. 23skidoo (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is it common practice for other encyclopedias to include glossaries like this? I'm curious. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia, glossaries have the same stature as Portals and Timelines. Should Portals be deleted as well as all wikipedia glossaries because they aren't in print encyclopedias? Wazronk (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a glossary isn't a dictionary. Glossaries are widespread on wikipedia, and for those who think they shouldn't be, it's a higher level discussion and not something for an article AfD. It certainly isn't a reason for deletion with current wikipedia policy. This glossary in particular is to document and be a simple digest of major terminologies in the book, which is 2000+ pages long, and so has a steep barrier for the casual person coming across the topic. Nothing more. (I'm the wikipedia editor who put the glossary together -- I've refrained from being overly biased and voting "strong keep" :) .) The nominator even actually has described this topic as from a "culty book", an inflammatory label that on its face speaks of bias and a lack of WP:GOODFAITH approach to this. Really, are deleting and censoring explanatory articles about such topics a furtherance of understanding or just an aggravation of that much more ignorance that leads people to label things that seem odd to them as "cult"? For those who think it's a trivial topic, WP:NOT#PAPER, the glossary can be here to be of use to others who would come along and make use of it even if you don't find you need it yourself, and the book is WP:V and WP:N. As the lead sentence of the intro says, the glossary just is intended to give "short definitions of words and concepts presented in the book, especially those that are unique or defined in a way that differs from more traditional understandings. The glossary is meant to assist people unfamiliar with The Urantia Book who may come across conversations or writings having to do with the readership surrounding it. The list is also meant to be a basic reference guide for terminology a reader is likely to encounter in the book, whether it is examined only briefly or read in more detail." Wazronk (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is clear that single-purpose accounts are abusing Wikipedia to make a proselytizing list of terms. Wikipedia is not a Urantia Foundation sponsored study group. There are occasions where extensive Wikipedia:Root pages can be written to great effect, but it should only be done to conform to summary style. I do not see that this article is doing that. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable, and had no assertion of notability, either. Dlabtot (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMO this article has several violations:

WP:NOT#REPOSITORY - Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links, images, or media files", in this case glossary terms.
WP:NOT#GUIDE - Wikipedia is not a "manual, guidebook, or textbook". The article is using Wikipedia as a guide for using the book.
WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK - "Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter". The article uses Wikipedia as a mere aid to reading the book.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Totally agree with the words written by Ihcoyc on 19 March 2008, "Nothing has really changed since the prior AfD, and glossaries are still acceptable content. Moreover, the Urantia Book claims to be a religious scripture. The validity of its proposed revelation is beside the point, ..." Very well worded. Very succinct. This article should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mws1 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (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.