Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jahbulon (3rd nomination)

I wish to step aside from the discussion about the merits of the AfD, and post an observation regarding the participants generally.

There are two entrenched parties. I feel that concensus is not possible between the two and thus all AfD's will fail whilst members of both are involved unless an infringement of Wiki Policy is found that cannot be answered. After three attempts this is unlikely. However, I feel that a finding of no concensus will not alleviate the matter either, the deletionists will continue to look for ways of challenging the validity of the entry and the keepers will continue to challenge those finding. It should be noted that there is nothing inherently wrong with either position; there are those who believe in policy and guidelines and are very strict in their interpretation of same, and there are those who feel more bound by the spirit of Wiki and the concept of WP:IAR.

In view of the ongoing debate I think it would be interesting to look at the responses from those individuals who have not been involved in previously either editing the article, contributing to the talk page or on previous AfD's (that, of course, means I am precluded).

The concensus of persons not previously involved is keep. I realise that this is not a straw poll, and that not all arguments are persuasive, and/or in line with AfD policy, and some persons may have agenda's. I have done a quick check on backgrounds on recent contributions to ensure that they have not recently been involved in the subject - other editors are invited to do same and remove anyone not meeting this critera. If any are subsequently removed, please provide reasons - and the same if bias is detected/suspected, but please do not remove.

This is only to show what those in the "greater" wikipedia feel about the AfD. It may be useful in helping people coming to a decision on the result of the AfD, given the positions of the interested parties.LessHeard vanU 22:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well Xyzzy is out, given his obvious statement regarding Masons "choosing not to publish the truth" - this is a clear instance of an agenda, and his user talk page shows further instances of issues regarding his edits furthering his agenda. Priyanath was recruited to vote - edit history shows no AfD votes ever, yet interaction with Hanuman Das in the past. The same appears to be the case with Rosencomet. That leaves us four keeps and a merge, and the content of those keeps is interesting, as some raise questions of the validity of sources or wording in the article, and some just think it's notable from Googling or the amount of discussion on it. So my sense of it from this group is that there are issues with the article (which we've already noted), and those editors of the article who voted to keep cannot articulate why it is notable, aside from a supposed controversy furthered by fringe groups. The logical explanations also do not seem to suffice, never mind etymologies mnade up by questionable "scholars." So howe does this change anything? The arguments that have been occuring have been doing so because people who don't understand the topic are taking anything they find as fact or proof without critical thought. MSJapan 02:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody should be excluded for making such an obvious statement. There are things that the Masons choose not to publish - their "secrets" - that's well known and stating a simple, obvious and well-known truth is simply not grounds for assuming bias. —Hanuman Das 03:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly what are the secrets? Are there a lot that aren't published, apparently? Because that seems to be the intent of your statement. MSJapan 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous question. It's already been stated: signs, grips and passwords. Clearly the word being discussed was at one time, and may still be, used as a password. Equally clearly, current Masons would like others to believe that such detail have been changed, true or not. If we assume it's true, which is not a given, then there are new signs, grips and passwords which have not been published. Shall we half it or letter it? X means Y in context Z. That sort of stuff. —Hanuman Das 04:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a very secret society if non-members were able to easily find out the "secrets"...LessHeard vanU 13:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I think this exercise is irrelevant to the ultimate decision on the AfD, I do want to set the record straight. This is the 20th AfD I've voted on. Look it up yourself - I'm not going to help you with that. Hanuman Das did suggest I look at the Jahbulon article, before it ever came up for AfD. I didn't add my opinion to the article talk page, since I didn't feel qualified to say anything on an arcane subject I know nothing about. But when I later saw that it was up for AfD (without any 'recruiting' from Hanuman Das), I was interested and also felt qualified - since I have voted on AfDs in the past (19 of them). And also because AfD is a policy issue unrelated to having to know the arcane details of Freemasonry and Jahbulon. ~~I request that my name not be re-added to the list above, since I think it's immaterial to this AfD discussion.~~ ॐ Priyanath talk 03:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment: there is no rule excluding people with a bias from registering their opinion and having it counted. It's clear to everyone except three people what the controversy is. Rather than accusing those who think it is clear what the controversy is of bias, one might ask why three editors can't seem to figure it out. —Hanuman Das 03:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then state it clearly with reasoning. That has yet to be done. MSJapan 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been stated multiple times on the talk page. It's stated in the article itself. Willful blinding cannot be cured with more words. —Hanuman Das 04:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has it? Nobody has a solid, well-laid out argument. All I see is notability from Google (this article being #1, and nothing mainstream or even reliable within the top 20 hits), and from that a statement of "controversy". Who is involved in the controversy? How many people are affected? How widespread is it, really? There are no concrete numbers or facts supporting the assertion of controversy. No one cares about reliability of sources; obviously, if the word is in a book, it must be an accurate representation of what the word means, right? Again, I believe this is all geared towards nothing but a mistaken belief that the article is exposing secrets, and is more concerned with that rather than writing an encyclopedic article that is supported with reliable sources from non-biased writers. MSJapan 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, non-notable things are used as examples in textbooks every day! —Hanuman Das 13:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep the discussion regarding the topic to the article talk page, the discussion regarding the AfD to that page, and this page regarding the voting pattern of previously uninvolved parties? It is getting very difficult to assume WP:Good Faith of some regular contributors - or indeed that they are willing to discuss anything that is not on their agenda.LessHeard vanU 13:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'd like to suggest that "previously uninvolved parties" should refer to editors who did not vote in either previous AfD. We have no place trying to decide who is biased for or against what or why. —Hanuman Das 13:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should also include people who had not previously edited (except minor) the article or contributed to the talk page, as it seems exposure quickly places people into one side or the other (it certainly did me!)LessHeard vanU 14:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see the need for this discussion at all. The result will clearly be keep. —Hanuman Das 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I suspect that the result will be (once again) "no-consensus", which achieves the same result, but has a slightly different meaning. Blueboar 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the effort going into drumming up support I'd be surprised if it is a no-consensus. It would require an admin with some backbone to recognise this as a no-consensus outcome.

There are issues which need discussed, but I'm not convinced that this is the place for them.

ALR 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well it should. The majority of editors are not convinced by your arguments. That should serve as a reality check for you, not the basis for further endless discussion. My humble opinion. Frater Xyzzy 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of my objectives in opening this talkpage was to indicate to the deletionist tendency that there are those who voted to keep whose contribution histories showed considerable experience in AfD's and matters of Wiki policy; and their comments regarding the viability of the AfD nom should be respected. I attempted to make clear that their conclusions were, as far as possible, unrelated to previous experience with the subject matter. It would take an Admin with far more than just backbone to disregard their comments.LessHeard vanU 20:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]