Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnosticism in popular culture (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. Concerns that the article has been completely unreferenced for nearly 5 years, and that the article consists exclusively of original research seem to trump the idea that an acceptable article could be written on the topic. In the absence of someone willing to rewrite the article, the other option is to remove unsourced OR from the article. In this particular case, that would mean removing all of the content from the article, which is indistinguishable from deleting the article. No prejudice against recreating this article with appropriately sourced content. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 16:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosticism in popular culture[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was nominated for deletion nearly 5 years ago, but the result was keep but cleanup. Here we are, after all this time, and it has not been improved. In fact, a side-by-side comparison of the day it was originally nominated and today shows that the content is nearly identical. All the same problems persist: lots of original research, no references, and an indiscriminate list of "examples" based only on the opinions of editors. This is not acceptable. Four years and nine months is enough time for this to have been improved. If this were edited today, most of the content would have to go. But, that is what AfD is for. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could make for a good article (I know nothing about the subject matter, so I'm just guessing.) But, as pointed out above, unless someone wants to do the work, just delete the page. If someone makes substantial improvements, please note on this page and I will be happy to change my vote, if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs)
Delete Unsourced OR that I see no way of cleaning up. Every example is either not trying with verbiage such as "X has gnosticism in it" or so mired in OR that it should be removed on sight. No one gives a damn about the article, so it won't be missed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to play devil's advocate, there is theoretically a way to clean it up. I took an apocalyptic literature class in college. I also took a class on postmodern culture. Trust me, there are all kinds of journals out there with these types of comparisons, so if someone wanted to go through and find such articles, I'm sure it's doable. I just have zero interest in doing the legwork, and it looks like noone else has either for the past 5 years. :)JoelWhy (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People clearly do care about the article because it gets a steady 30 hits a day which is a lot better than most. It has been kept before at AFD and here we are again caring about it. TPH routinely offers a counsel of despair and is routinely proven wrong when editors find sources that he was unable or unwilling to find. Warden (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is chock full of unverifiable content saying that this or that has Gnostic themes, with no sources backing it up. One could theoretically try to source these things, but most of it seems like it's simply editor's opinion. Ducknish (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup and we don't have a deadline. It is, on the other hand, our explicit policy that articles may be incomplete or otherwise in need of development. 99% of our articles are in this state and there seems to be no reason to pick on this one. The topic is notable and it doesn't take long to find a substantial book about it such as Forbidden Faith: The Gnostic Legacy from the Gospels to The Da Vinci Code. Now what usually happens in such cases that that these IPC articles are spinoffs from the main topic. If one doesn't care for the spinoff then you just merge it back into the main article. Warden (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current article contains virtually nothing of value. This article isn't in need of a clean-up -- it's in need of being written from scratch. For 5 years, no one has done so. As the only thing we'd be preserving is the title of the article, a delete is warranted. However, as I indicated above if someone wants to draft an article to replace the current text, I will happily change my vote. I'm sure the other editors would do the same.JoelWhy (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination rationale is bankrupt. Wikipedia rules that tell us that articles that can be improved, must be kept, are not temporary. There is no WP:DEADLINE. I would say 'speedy keep' were it not for 10lb's rationale of OR, which has to be addressed, I guess. I mean, he has not done anything but assert it, so whatever. I (also?) occasionally return to the point of frustration past resignation, because of rubberstamped delete votes and nominations. As for improving the article, it is just as simple as picking a name for the list, putting it in Google Search with "gnosticism", and copying the URL. I found sources for all I have seen so far.

Harold Bloom

Jorge Luis Borges

John Crowley

Anarchangel (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator notes that no one has cleaned it up... but has not himself cleaned it up! Just because no one has cleaned up an article suitable for cleanup does not mean that deletion is an acceptable option. The topic is clearly notable, even if I agree that many of the examples are both currently unsourced and likely unsourceable. Thus, a deletion is not a policy-supported option per WP:ATD, even though cleanup is clearly appropriate. Oh, and per WP:IPC, merging much of this content back into Gnosticism would be a less-preferred option, but with more policy support than an outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. It certainly is a bad article, but that's not a reason for deletion - the issue is the notability of the subject. Actually, plenty has been written about Gnosticism in popular culture. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (NB, I have several of the relevant sources - including J. M. Robinson's The Nag Hammadi Library, which contains an analysis of the literary significance of Gnosticism - and though I don't see myself making a last-ditch overnight attempt to rewrite this article to prevent it being deleted, I will be happy to work on it at a slower pace, sometime over the next week or two. This is the sort of thing that can happen if articles don't get deleted just because they aren't currently perfect). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree that the actual topic is probably valid, and a decent, sourced article could probably be created on the subject, its current state is such a unsalvageable mess of original research and unsourced material that it would just save a lot of time to just delete the whole mess and start over, per WP:TNT. Rorshacma (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is mostly unverified original research; which has no place on any Wikipedia page. Most of these points are not sourced to bridge the connection with Gnosticism, and the few where the connection is obvious are not relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of Gnosticism. Them From Space 18:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. If we agree that the article is a mess, and has not been cleaned up in years, then there is no reason to expect that it will be cleaned up any time soon. It's better to have no article than to have one full of OR, especially given that a cleanup would amount to a full rewrite anyway. Sandstein 05:12, 11 May 2012 (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.