Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormon mysticism

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, userfy on request if reliable sources can be provided. No verification of even basic claims of fact or notability has been offered, either in the article or in this discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon mysticism[edit]

Mormon mysticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

original research -999 (Talk) 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. -999 (Talk) 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough references to back the core claims. It just needs to be cleaned up. It is also still a stub, and there is much work to be done. --Tsuzuki26 20:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fairly impressive references section at least. May be some originial research but then again, how many articles out there dont have a little? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's quite a fascinating topic, and with more reviews and research (per Chris) then this page will grow into something great. And per Tsuzuki, it's a stub, work could be done! Missvain 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although fascinating the article is original research --Trödel 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Original research. Although it did make me laugh, it has no place on Wikipedia. --Lethargy 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In reviewing the each of the references, there is not a single reference that supports the claims of the article. Almost all of the "See also" refer to blogs or blog-like sites directed by Tsuzuki san. There is a marked difference between a Mormon having an interest in the occult and Mormons having an interest in the occult as is being portrayed by this single editor. This is a subject which I have studied for many, many years, the thesis is made out of whole cloth. Storm Rider (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references point more to a club than an actual movement. Seems little more than trivia. Bytebear 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I read the references differently than Bytebear and come up with the alternate result. Carlossuarez46 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I checked the history page and find it interesting that those voting to Delete are systematically deleting the article part by part already. It's hard to call this a good faith Afd. Otherwise, it'd be a weak keep, because I have doubts that the secondary sources are available to back up this as a movement within a movement. If they want to take this in the direction of Mysticism as an important element within Mormonism, then this article has real potential. But the abuse of procedure is troublesome--so I'll keep my vote at 'Keep'. 75.18.4.148 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC) — 75.18.4.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Userfy It's clear no useful work can be done on this article until the vultures leave. 69.155.229.46 01:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes when users lash out though anon IP addresses they say the most irrational things. An potential abuse of procedure would have been to speedy delete this article which I would have done if this was about a topic other than one I freqently edit. --Trödel 05:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The editor above ( 75.18.4.148) hit it right on the head. I can see a cabal at work. Duke53 | Talk 02:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 75.18.4.148 said: "...those voting to Delete are systematically deleting the article part by part already."
Please provide examples to back this up, the only edits I see in the history since this was put up for deletion are requests for sources, copy edits, and my own removal of a weasel-worded paragraph and external links which seemed inappropriate.[1]
Labeling those who vote for deletion as a "cabal" or accusing them of "abusing procedure" seems to fit into the "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" guideline of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Remove your attacks or back them up. --Lethargy 02:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge about any other editors' 'affiliations', just that it's the same old bunch that seem to work together often to promote the same POV. Duke53 | Talk 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"it's the same old bunch that seem to work together often to promote the same POV." you do realize you just did it again, right? --Lethargy 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by "affiliations" you are referring to the fact that you are LDS, you should know that I share that same affiliation and I also see the pattern that 75.18.4.148 mentioned. --Tsuzuki26 03:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By affiliation I was referring to Duke's assertion that we are a cabal. As far as seeing the same pattern, please put your money where your mouth is and link to instances where "those voting to Delete are systematically deleting the article part by part already" --Lethargy 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The links were a target for systematic removal. The one who suggested the deletion of this topic was doing that a lot, and s/he didn't even touch the talk page. --Tsuzuki26 08:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, I removed blog and discussion group links once and reverted to it once. Where I come from twice is not a lot. -999 (Talk) 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who was JoeSmack then? --Tsuzuki26 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. And it is uncivil to imply otherwise. I don't use socks, I don't need them as I am usually right and fully supported by Wikipedia policy. :-) -999 (Talk) 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Don't you know how to look at a user's contributions? That user has been here longer than I have (since 2004 in fact) and couldn't possibly be confused for a sockpuppet. -999 (Talk) 18:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"11:25, 14 November 2006 JoeSmack (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 87810661 dated 2006-11-14 19:09:19 by 999 using popups)"
"11:44, 14 November 2006 999 (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 87814018 dated 2006-11-14 19:25:40 by JoeSmack using popups)"
What's that? --Tsuzuki26 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its another user reverting the article to a version by me. Take it up with JoeSmack who, as I said, has been here for some time. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I was unfamiliar with the notation. --Tsuzuki26 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am re-reading the references, and they do in fact discuss mysticism within Mormonism. They do no describe a group of people who practice such mysticism. In other words, this article is about a club that believes in mysticism. If you want to start an article Mysticism in Mormonism then that is one thing, but to create a wiki page for every yahoo group seems a bit extensive. Bytebear 03:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a stub about mysticism within Mormonism. If you would like to help with content, please be my guest. --Tsuzuki26 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This appears to be a real movement. --Oakshade 05:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oak, can you please define "movement" for me? Also, a movement of what: young people, individuals, or Mormons? If they are Mormons, could you please point me to the evidence that convinced you of this position?
I have always interpreted a movement as something that is something that is measureable, observable within society, and definitive. Tsuzuki claims on his referenced blog to support this article that he is LDS and is the president of the Mormon club in his educational institution (high school?) and president of the Pagan club. I assure you, from an LDS doctrinal standpoint, this is not acceptable or recommended; it is a significant conflict. However, he/she is free to choose whatever he chooses, but it is not a choice of a Mormon, but as an individual. Storm Rider (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vice president of the pagan club, actually, and I'm only a member of the LDS Student Association through my activity with the Institute, though I attend the leadership meetings as often as I can. --Tsuzuki26 20:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word "movement" can be subjective, but in this case, from what I can deduce from the sources cited in the article, it seems to be at least a segment of LDS practitioners embrace some aspects of what is defined as mysticism and that can arguably be considered a "movement." I value your perspective on LDS as I'm not a member, but what I do know is that the LDS, like many religions, is varied and has many different perspectives (I'm Catholic and believe me, most Catholics aren't even aware of the literally hundreds of difference branches and philosophies that fall under just the "Roman Catholic" umbrella). It appears from the specific reliable sources (I'm choosing to ignore the sources like blogs and focusing on more standard ones like the Salt Lake Tribune articles), the existence of interest, both scholarly and lay, in Mormon mysticism appears real. --Oakshade 20:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research, non-notable, and possible POV fork. Just because because an undefined number of people with a Mormon background find an attraction to mysticism &/or the occult does not mean that the subject warrants an article. Where's the article about Lutheran mysticism? It won't be written because it's just not a noteworthy topic, even though I'm sure that there are probably some number of people that come from that background that are interested in mysticism &/or the occult, just as there probably are some people from every religious (or irreligious) background that are attracted to it. The only reason I can see to keep this article would be to provide yet another place for the tired "Mormonism is a cult" POV pushing, but this time it would presumably be a "safe" place to present that argument, since the article topic is already about cultish topics. I for one hope that Wikipedia will do better than to continue finding additional places to fight over that topic. -- FishUtah 06:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this discussion I would also add WP:SPAM as a reason to delete the article. Please also consider the edit history for Tsuzuki26 (talk · contribs), the creator & primary proponent of the article — this is really the only article edited by that user, and that user appears be playing a PR/advocate role for this obscure topic. -- FishUtah 16:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure - I have edited the article in question as 71.35.41.92 (talk · contribs) -- FishUtah 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added more references. This isn't spam. It's a work in progress. --Tsuzuki26 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References should never be placed in an external links section, they should be in the references section. --Lethargy 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If mysticism has a distinct flavor within a Lutheran setting, then by all means create the article. --Tsuzuki26 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My vote for keep is in no way a "Mormonism is a cult" POV as I, and I'm assuming most non-Mormans, don't view Mormanism in that way. Christian mysticism has a very long history and there seems to be some recognition of this branch of it. --Oakshade 08:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are correct that Christian mysticism exists as a significant topic -- however the "me-too" tact taken on this article does not support it's notability, just as any other article about |Fill in the blank with a denomination| mysticism would not without good, solid references demonstrating it is significant as a distinct topic. I'm also not saying that the article as currently written is inherently anti-Mormon, though I feel that it is an article with an agenda; I'm just warning that it is likely to be hijacked for "Mormonism is a cult" POV purposes. First and foremost this article is Original Research about an obscure topic that doesn't have the support of references that are generally acceptable on Wikipedia, but there is also additional reasons for removing it based on unwarranted POV forking, both within the Mormonism topics, as well as with Christian mysticism, syncretism, comparative religion topics. -- FishUtah 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research is not permitted here, and this looks like a POV-fork to me. Also, I can find no sources that assert the notability of this 'cult'. --SunStar Net 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tsuzuki26. Edison 20:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, NN, and completely unverifiable. Anomo 13:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean towards DELETE this article is really weak and doesn't, IMHO, sufficeintly defend the notion that Mormon Mysticism is a unique and discernable movement or approach to the subject of "Mormons who are also interested in mysticism."Balloonman 20:59, 16 November 2006 (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/Mormon_mysticism&oldid=1146033565"