Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Movement

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Frankly, there is way too much sockery for any kind of clear judgement. I'm going to withdraw this as no consensus, and renominate it for procedure's sake, with semi-protection. Proto::type 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the new, semi-protected AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gnostic_Movement_(second_nomination). Proto::type 16:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic Movement

edit

unencyclopedic promotion page. Was prodded but tag was removed. See Talk:Gnostic Movement for details. -999 (Talk) 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, please see my comments in the sexual transmutation AfD; most of them apply here. And from nom's comments, I'm assuming that he took the time to familiarize himself with the Talk page discussions before nominating, even if he didn't take part himself. While I disagree with the nom's judgment on this article, I don't see any reason to think this was a bad-faith or drive-by nomination. -- H·G (words/works) 06:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless notability not proven by end of AfD: Given the prolieration of modern Gnostic movements, one main article is needed, but not many, many. The overall phenomenon "sounds" notable from what I'm seeing, but "sounds to A. B." is not enough -- this article has yet to verifiably prove its importance to justify retention under WP:NN. That could be fixed simply by citing some numbers (from reliable sources) as to how many people are involved. Notability is key -- fix it or delete the article. Remaining problems can be addressed before end of AfD. WP:OR can be fixed, as the author, Paul Stone, has suggested below, by shrinking it down to a neutral stub until someone has additional verifiable information from reliable sources. As noted, I remain concerned about the dynamics of this AfD, especially the apparent sockpuppet attack. --A. B. 15:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I don't like all these sockpuppets either. As I have no vested interest in the outcome, I've been identifying sockpuppets when I see them whether they agree with me or oppose me, but I'm glad you've been doing such a good job of tagging them yourself - it seems to have become a bit more work than I'd like to deal with!!! -999 (Talk) 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rewrite, and move. An ideal outcome in my eyes would be to have this page point to Gnosticism (since Google indicates that far more people searching for the term are looking for that[1] than for this[2]), move this current article to something like Gnostic Movement (Weor), and have a disamb sentence on Gnosticism pointing to the new page. I'm convinced that this is significant enough in some circles to be worth keeping, but not significant enough to hog the term "Gnostic movement." And while this article is certainly POV right now and might be OR, this can hopefully be fixed. -- H·G (words/works) 06:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Attack pages --Viewmaster 11:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Viewmaster's speedy delete:
I'm off to a meeting and may not have time to fully review this stuff myself for a few days.--A. B. 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect page to Gnosticism. --Ordet 20:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) This user's first and only edit -999 (Talk) 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV --VanessaJ 20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) This user's first and only edit -999 (Talk) 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. This article says the term Gnostic Movement is not associated with contemporary Gnostic organisations - this is a POV only.
    • 2. By placing the word Masters in quotation marks in this sentence 'currently there are a number of different lineages of "Masters"' is to imply that none are actually Masters - this is a POV and not based on factual evidence.
    • 3. Under 'New Order Schools' there are numerous sweeping assumptions. Saying that something happened "most likely" because of such and such a reason is not a factual description of events, but a guess based on biased views and information. There is no evidence given for the numerous assumptions. What is the claim that there is not a Three Chamber system based on? - POV only
    • 4. Why is Gnosticweb the only gnostic organisation identified and selectively highlighted in this section - this is provocation.
    • 5. The section on Pseudo-schools is another section for provocation. Whilst some claims may be true it is generally written based on opinions, hearsay, gossip and rumours.
    • 6. Branding individuals as mistaken mythomaniacs is attacking and another sweeping POV.
    • 7. Generally there is no merit to this article other than to fuel debate and argument.
  • Delete - POV --Jaspers 20:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) This user's first and only edit -999 (Talk) 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect page to Gnosticism. (UTC)--Lemurien 22:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete re Attack pages - --Obianca 23:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator--Osto 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unfortunate that this page was called Gnostic Movement because it did not provide any objectivity about this topic, merely a POV that lacked neutrality and resourceful information. Listing people as "self Proclaimed Masters" and following it with comments eluding to those people being mythomaniacs, especially those still living, could very well be considered defamation of character.
  • Speedy delete re Attack pages. --Jacki123 23:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect page to Gnosticism. --JustinMN 00:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this article violates Netural POV. Despite a surface neutrality, it seems clear that it's been written by a proponent of one of the earlier schools of Samael Aun Weor, and intended to discredit any later developments in modern gnosticism. Examples of this include:
    • use of inverted commas surrounding words like "advanced" and "masters", colours the text with a sense of incredulity or even sarcasm, and seems intended to influence the reader's perception
    • the quoted material (from Zodiacal Course) appears selected less to shed insight into what the Gnostic Movement is then to subtly deride other schools that disagree with the author's POV
    • much explanation of why earlier schools view later offshoots as "only superficially affiliated of the doctrine of Samael Aun Weor" without any attempt to provide the alternative perspective(s)
    • the use of the term "self-proclaimed" master becomes almost derogatory by the article's end, and the implication is that they are generally "mythomaniacs" according to the "source" (footnote 4). Upon investigation, the source appears to be the website of a school that goes to considerable lengths to make clear their disagreement with later offshoots of modern gnosticism -- can we expect this to be a balanced and objective source? Particularily, again, as no efforts are made to offer a countering perspective.
    • from viewing the edit history and the discussion pages, some of which seems almost hysterical, and considering the lack of verifiable sources, it seems that this article will inevitably be hijacked by interested parties, and fails to provide an objective assessment of the subject matter.
    • Possible sockpuppet -- this is user's first and only Wikipedia edit--A. B. 03:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect page to [[Gnosticism] - --Blacker10 01:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - POV --Martius12 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV --PJohn123 03:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV --ChetWesley 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article starts out giving the appearance of being informational, but as it goes on beyond the introduction, it seems that the actual purpose of the article is to persuade the reader that certain schools are legitimate, while others are decidedly not legitimate. It serves little informational purpose beyond the introduction, which contains information already found within other articles.
    • Some statements made later on in the article, including some under, "New Order Schools," are unfounded and without any source of reference. For example, how can it be proven whether or not the new order schools carry a three chamber system? This term refers to a school system (stated by Samael Aun Weor as being a defining point of a true Esoteric institution) structured with an external (public), intermediate, and internal (esoteric) chamber system. By definition, if a school did have an internal chamber, this wouldn't necessarily be something known to those outside the school. The fact that this is used as a defining factor of "new order schools" shows an author interested in promoting something he is familiar with, while dismissing that which he is unfamiliar with.
    • Similar could be said about the "self-proclaimed Masters" section. Samael Aun Weor himself was a "self-proclaimed" Master (literally, he proclaimed himself a Master). There is no way to prove who is and who is not a "true Master" versus a "self-proclaimed Master," so a list of self-proclaimed Masters seems again only to serve the point of view of the author that these "Masters" are illegitimate.
    • There are other statements presented as fact which similarly there is no way to prove. I don't have time to go through all of it, but if you go through it, you will be able to spot others.
    • Finally, the article defines "Gnostic Movement" as something which belongs solely to Samael Aun Weor, when it is clear that there are other schools with the same name. Because of that fact, the whole hierarchical structure of the article is flawed. I suggest deletion because in my opinion, there is no way such an article can exist without being a battleground for an edit war on the part of the disagreeing schools.
      • Possible sockpuppet -- this is user's first and only Wikipedia edit. Must have a weak case for deleting if so many sockpuppets are needed. --A. B. 04:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment:--ChetWesley 14:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) This is actually my second edit, but true first under a username. For what it's worth, I can assert that this is the only comment (well other than this one) I have made on this page. I don't think the number of votes should have merit above the value of the arguments within them. Also, it seems unfair and paranoid to assume that all posting is in bad faith.[reply]
  • Speedy delete contains Attack pages.
Quote wiki: "Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their
subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Citizen is a moron"). This
includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and
unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to."
In looking through the history of this article, changes proposed have been continually
reverted back to a POV. There have been enough edits and posts to have
this article neutral, but it seems the original author and some others
are intransigent. This has become an edit war. It is a pity but it seems
this page may be better off redirected to an alterate. Or at least have
the existing article, discussion and threads permanently deleted so
someone can have another go at producing something neutral that may
assist genuine searchers enquiring about the name gnostic movement.
Regarding all the possible sockpuppet claims, this may be inaccurate if all those people are not the same person. Wiki says "This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith
contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the
decision process." As A.B. has stated these are POSSIBLE, NOT ABSOLUTE, unless wiki admins know for sure they are all the same person?
It is quite plausible that many people who have been interested in the article have never previously made edits to it. It is also plausible that those people have no other articles of interest in wikipedia and therefore not made any other contributions.
Irrespective I think that assertions like "Must have a weak case for deleting if so many sockpuppets are needed" is flawed. It is not a 'Must' at all. This statement may be totally misleading and inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clean2 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 20 July 2006.
Comment: New user Clean2's editing has mostly consisted of creating his new article, The Gnostic Movement Incorporated, and adding links to other articles directing people to that article and/or that organization's web site. Someone more qualified should evaluate Clean2's new article and links for their appropriateness for inclusion in Wikipedia. Their bearing on Clean2's neutrality in this AfD speak for themselves. --A. B. 13:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An important distinction: I made the comment for each of those new users that he/she was a "possible sockpuppet". Possibly one or two unique editors did come here and make their very first edits (and in good faith); that's why I marked no one editor as a definite sockpuppet. I can, however, say with great assurance that the great preponderance absolutely were sockpuppets. I will let their edit patterns speak for themselves. --A. B. 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete contains Attack pages.
This page seems to have been started to do nothing more than debunk particular gnostic schools in favour of another and is littered with POV. Regardless of some users association with these schools the article is negative POV and contains some defamatory comments which the history shows has resulted in an edit war. It is inevitable that some users drawn to comment on this page will probably have a vested interest in the subject matter. Hopefully the admins or moderators can assist with either ensuring the page meets NPOV and other requirements or delete it. --Percevalles 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Percevalles has made about 20 edits, all to Gnosticism-related articles and most ading external likns to the same The Gnostic Movement Incorporated-affiliated sites Clean2 was linking to. --A. B. 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the author of this article, I'm not sure it can be brought out of WP:OR status, as there is just not that much 3rd party information out there, even though thousands of schools exist around the world. Maybe the article should just be reduced to a stub until such information exist, or deleted altogether. --Paul Stone 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

For the average user in userland, ie non wiki geek (no derogation intended) it would seem that nearly everyone has been discredited.

999 who initiated the call for deletion is discredited for making a drive-by nomination, even though no previous history or association can be found.

The early 'voters' who do not appear as sockpuppets are discredited because they are making votes not discussions.

The sockpuppets are discredited because they are seen to jump in solely to ask for deletion or other, when they had no previous contribution history (even though some of their comments are definitely worthy of consideration).

Those who had previously made contributions to the article but have shown some kind of affiliation with the subject matter are deemed bias and therefore discredited. (Why would someone spend time and effort creating a wiki article if they had no involvement or interest in it?)

That leaves only...? Wish I knew how the system worked?

It seems there is more emphasis on who users are then the actual contents of the article!

My opinion now (if it counts for anything?) is I tend to agree with the author - have a NPOV stub or delete the article.

[Sorry A.B. can't get the editing neat?] --Clean2 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. --Dgard000369 12:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page seems to have quite a bias. I stumbled across this page through a google search a little while ago and from other information I've found on this topic it doesn't seem very objective (also it seems to have become an argument). Maybe it would be better to have a clean state so the info can start again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgard000369 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete and redirect page to Gnosticism. Billson34
  • Delete - POV --CeJay 14:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)CeJay[reply]
  • Speedy delete re Attack pages. --Green Hornet 14:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong KEEP! and tag for clean-up regarding the NPOV issues. Large movements like this one and prolific authors should have articles. These articles have lasted more than 6 months and are actively being improved upon by several editors. They are not stubs, and provide a lot of detailed and potentially useful information. They seem to me to be no different from the vast majority of contentious issues that have articles on Wikipedia. The movement may not be quite as notable as, say scientology, but in many respects these articles remind me of the articls on that movement, only people have managed to bring that one up to FA status. WP certainly has articles on less notable things. Plus, articles that start out reading like ads can and have in the past been improved to such a point that no one mistakes them for such. ONUnicorn 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for cleanup/npov. POV isn't reason enough for a delete, IMHO. Honestly, the notability of the subject matter should matter a lot more. As noted above, there's a lot of history to this article and the subject matter seems notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. To delete an article because its easier than actually putting in the work to make it a GOOD article is, in my opinion, a less-than-optimal choice. As a matter of full disclosure, this article was prodded a while back and I removed the prod for similiar reasons (POV not sufficient for deletion). However, I have no other investment in this article. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:49, 24 July 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/Gnostic_Movement&oldid=1266003464"