Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe reality

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 No consensus; default to keep - Philippe | Talk 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universe reality[edit]

Tagged for notability for over six months and not fixed. This is a facet of the Urantia book that has no independent references cited. This article appears to be the web's leading resource on this term, and most of the others do not look helpful as sources. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If we accept the Urantia book as notable (and I see no Afd on it) and if the Urantia article is too big for this info to be comfortably added (which it is), then a separate page looks a good idea. It's all looney tunes of course, but that's not a reason to delete it.Halfmast (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what sources independent of Urantia exist to substantiate the subject? I can see it as a section in Urantia but I can't find any evidence of independent significance. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we face the fact that WP:SS and WP:N conflict. Or if they do not, they are not worded clearly enough to make it obvious they don't. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Universe reality article is a summary of a major topic in the Urantia Book. WP:SS--"Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place".

What Guy says is true: there are no independent sources (that I am aware of) that address the topic of universe reality as it is presented in the Urantia Book. The Urantia Book article is already difficult to read, I wonder if anyone not familiar with it can get through it. The editors there have been trying to simplify it as best they can. It simply is too much to put the UR article into the already burdensome Urantia Book artricle.

The same problem probably exists also for the "History and future of the World" and the "Revelation (The Urantia Book)" articles. I doubt that either of these are in any third party book.

These three articles are summary extensions of the main article, not stand alone articles. It is clearly indicated, we hope, that these articles are extensions of the main article.

On third party references: There are six third party books and 7 websites on the Urantial Book. The Koran has 10 books listed as third party references: 4 more than the Urantia Book-but then its been around a little longer. I addressed the summary vs synthesis issue in my remarks on Jan 25, which you probably have seen.--Richiar (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I just noticed that the title of the article should have read: "Universe reality (The Urantia Book)". That was an error on my part. I put in references at the bottom of the page also.--Richiar (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as "Cosmology (The Urantia Book)", and use it as the main article for that topic according to WP:SS (there already is a decent but cumbersome subsection "Cosmology" in The Urantia Book article, which could actually stand to have content shifted to a side article like this one). The book doesn't use the phrase "universe reality" as a specially defined term and "cosmology" could be taken as a synonym as far as I can tell. There is independent third-party assessment that this aspect of the book is notable. The harshest published criticism to date was Martin Gardner's Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery, but his summary conclusion on this aspect of the book was that "The UB's cosmology outrivals in fantasy the cosmology of any science fiction work known to me". Brad Gooch in his book echoed this view and added in the context of discussing the cosmology that "No one can read through the UB, or even just parts of it, without wondering how such an incredibly detailed mix of science, ethics, politics, and polytheology ever got set down in one monstrous blue-covered volume." That being said it's clear the article is in rough shape and needs a lot of work. I've been on the fence about whether it's a suitable topic for a wikipedia article and haven't contributed to it before, but in the sense of it becoming a WP:NPOV explanation of the TUB's cosmology (eg, like Mormon cosmology, Hindu cosmology, etc... heck, there's even a Raëlian cosmology article on WP), I think that it is a defensible sub-topic to keep and improve. If there is agreement by the end of the Afd that it is worth keeping, I'll assist with clean up. Wazronk (talk) 21:47, 26 February 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.