Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people said to be angels

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 Userfication I'm not going to delete this, as I think it has potential and I'm going to give the author the benefit of the doubt, but in the current shape under the current title, it would be deleted. I think the author might be able to do something with this, but when he tries to move it back into the mainspace, I suggest naming it something along the lines of List of Angels according to Unarius Academy of Science that would cover the objection of the vagueness of inclusion criterion and objectiveness of the subject. The page has been moved to User_talk:Abyssal/Angel.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people said to be angels

List of people said to be angels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious and highly controversial categorization based on the beliefs of a single religious organization with which the majority of those listed had no association. Unverifiable and referenced by only one source. See also WP:BOLLOCKS. I42 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no controversy, every member of the list has been sourced as having been claimed to be angels. Period. Only a single religious group has been represented because I've only consulted one source. I've only consulted one source, because surprise, the article's only been up for a day. You say it's unverifiable and reference by only one source. That doesn't make any sense. It's either unverifiable, or it's sourced. It can't be both. Also, WP: Bollocks doesn't apply here at all. That's just dishonest Wikilawyering. Abyssal (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, that list could grow quite long. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You voted twice. "The page could grow too big" isn't a valid justification for deletion. Long pages can always be split. For deletion, a page's problems should be insurmountable; See WP: Problem "Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." Abyssal (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Marcus Qwertyus has only !voted once. He has also added his signature to Mandsford's !vote immediately below. I42 (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crap. Sorry, Marcus, I42 is right. Abyssal (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of what's here now can be mentioned, in a few sentences, in Unarius Academy of Science. As Marcus says, it would be a long list-- my momma once said that I was a little angel, so I should be on the list. Mandsford 18:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Citation needed.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You voted twice. Also, that's ridiculous. You might as well say we could delete List of people who have been considered deities as some people have said "you're a god at guitar hero!" Is it true? Yeah, but you know it's outside the scope of the article. You're just ridiculing. Abyssal (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Mandsford has only !voted once. Marus Qwertyus has added his signature, which makes this look confusing. I42 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, sorry. Abyssal (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I42 is right-- I don't know what possessed Marcus to add his signature to my comment, or the "citation needed" bullshit. I can only imagine what he would have put on there if I had disagreed with him. Notice to him and to other new guys, do not edit other people's comments except in extreme situations. Mandsford 12:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the confusion. Merely joking.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COATRACK. The article doesn't even state what determines a person to be an angel -- actually, it says these are people said to be angels, so maybe the article creator himself doesn't necessarily believe it? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, I don't believe this crap, so you know maybe you should have AGFed instead making baseless accusations of me erecting coatracks. Also, you're violating WP:NOTCLEANUP as well. The deletion process is not for article issues that could be solved in 5 minutes. If you had issues with vague inclusion criteria, that should have been brought up on the talk page. Abyssal (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The articles Noah and Adam and Eve (LDS Church) provide notable sources about the beliefs that Noah was Gabriel and that Adam was Michael. If there is notable sources about a particular person being an anvel, then place that assertion in the page of the person/angel likes was done with Noah, etc. Prsaucer1958 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: That would be great information that anyone could have added to the article, but people are so busy trying to delete the article on the grounds that only Unarius information has been included that I don't have tie to add information not related to Unarius. Abyssal (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you're skeptical about whether the article deserves to be included, you better cite some inclusion policy. Extremely similar precedents for this article exist, so it's your obligation to show how this article is somehow intrinsically different. For deletion, a page's problems should be insurmountable, again, see WP: NOTCLEANUP and WP:PROBLEM. The deletion process is not for problems that could easily be cleaned up. "Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." This article actually does better than the policy requirement, because there is already notable content with a reliable, scholarly source. Abyssal (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support deletion because this page describes a non-notable fringe idea. Incidentally, the articles Abyssal mentions below, List of people who have been considered deities, List of people claimed to be immortal, and List of people who have claimed to be Jesus, all have problems themselves, particularly inclusion of some people on the lists without having sources associated with them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why is this article not notable, but the articles List of people who have been considered deities, List of people claimed to be immortal, and List of people who have claimed to be Jesus notable? Abyssal (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article has notability as established by the above several precedents in the religious lists categories where people of various types of alleged extraordinary nature are compiled. It draws on a reliable scholarly source about new religious movements and the role that prophecy, especially failed prophecy, plays therein. It is not a sectarian source, as evidenced by its title; When Prophecy Never Fails: Myth and Reality in a Flying Saucer Group. Users accusing me of violating WP: Bollocks or WP: Coatrack, therefore are at best neglectful of what the article actually implied or at worst actually dishonest. Only one source has been used because I have only had time to consult one source.
  • The rapid attempts at deletion violates WP:DEMOLISH by attempting to delete a well sourced article on a notable subject faster than it can reasonably expected to be constructed. Criticism that the article is too Unarius-centered are frustrating because the list would already include content relevant to multiple faiths if not for the fact that this attempt at deletion has prevented me from adding it by distracting me efforts. Another user has pointed out LDS claims that would make good additions to the article, further invalidating already spurious criticisms of coatracking and me allegedly having a special interest in the subject. I have intended to add information about Jehovah's Witnesses have made similar claims about Jesus being the Archangel Michael and traditional Hebrew mythology holds that Enoch became the angel Aratron while Elijah who was taken to heaven in a fiery chariot became the angel Metatron. There are no doubt countless more, but again, attempts to delete the article while making no attempt to fix the problems is preventing my from adding this information.
  • Claims that I did not clarify the inclusion criteria are also because I haven't had time to write a good lead, which again, is due to my having to defend the existence of the article. Members advocating deletion have consistently ignored actual policy regarding what must be established for an article to be deleted by ignoring WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:PROBLEM. Some reasons for deletion are minor quibbles about what members imagine might happen in the future, like that the article might get too long. This when long articles are routinely split and no policy suggests that long lists should be deleted or that lists which might conceivably at some point one day become long don't qualify for inclusion. Apart from demonstrably false accusations of WP:COATRACKing and WP:BOLLOCKS, no one has yet brought forth legitimate criticisms of the article that are actually based in policy or inclusion criteria. One member actually voted against the article twice.
  • The consistent absence of policy based objections violates WP:BEFORE and WP:BEGIN which state that members advocating for the deletion of an article should have a thorough understanding of the relevant policies. They also state that problems that can be solved through normal editing are not grounds for deletion, the article including only information on Unarius, the vague inclusion criteria and most other raised criticisms fall under this policy as they could easily be fixed in the course of normally editing, which was disrupted by this whole proceeding. Other relevant policy violated by the attempt to cite surmountable problems as grounds for deletion are WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:PROBLEM. Even articles with surmountable issues that haven't been edited for years are still acceptable for inclusion, much less articles still being actively worked on! See WP: NOEFFORT. Abyssal (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inclusion criterion unclear and too vast (WP:NOTIINFO, WP:NOTDIR). Who called who an angel? If it's all claims by Unarius Academy of Science, then it doesn't deserve its own article as there is no independent source to establish the notability of this claim.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE WRITTEN BY A SOCIAL SCIENTIST AS ONE OF MULTIPLE PUBLISHED ETHNOGAPHICAL ACCOUNTS ABOUT THIS NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT. SURELY MULTIPLE PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS AND A BOOK ARE ENOUGH TO INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISH THAT UNARIUS AND ITS BELIEFS ARE NOTABLE. THE BOOK IN PARTICULAR IS CITED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE AND HAS BEEN MENTIONED MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION. DO I HAVE TO SHOUT THIS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS IN BOLD FOR THIS FACT TO FINALLY BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY AT LEAST ONE MEMBER? I DON'T LIKE YELLING BUT IT GETS TEDIOUS REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER WITH NOBODY PAYING ATTENTION WHEN IF THEY HAD BEEN PAYING ATTENTION THEY WOULDN'T BE MAKING OBVIOUSLY FALSE ACCUSATIONS. You say the inclusion criteria are vague, which means you haven't been reading the discussion; the criteria are vague because the article was put up for deletion far quicker than I could right a lead delineating what they are. This was already discussed, and rebutted with reference to policy, those policies being ones pronouncing that PROBLEMS WHICH CAN BE SOLVED BY NORMAL EDITING ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR DELETIONit's in all caps and bold this time because apparently just putting it in bold wasn't enough that last few times I cited that policy. No, I've literally pointed out this policy multiple times in bold for no avail. Solvable problems (including vague inclusion criteria due to a lack of a lead section) are not grounds for deletion. By policy. I've pointed out before that this is even true of articles which are years old, much less articles I've had only a day or so to work on. Abyssal (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As is, it's a coatrack. If left alone, it would be an unmaintainable list due to the wide open and subjective nature of the inclusion criterion. Location (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You haven't read the discussion, I've already discussed why it's not a coatrack. I think it was like my second comment on the page. Ironically the only reason it even resembles a coat rack is because I have to sit here fighting off people calling it a coatrack instead of adding information on non-Unarius related subjects. As for vague inclusion criteria goes, once again, congrats on having ignored the preceding discussion. THE REASON INCLUSION CRITERIA ARE VAGUE IS BECAUSE I HAVEN'T FORMALLY NOTED THEM IN THE ARTICLE. THE REASON I HAVEN'T FORMALLY NOTED THEM IN THE ARTICLE IS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TOO BUSY ARGUING ABOUT THE LACK OF INCLUSION CRITERIA HERE TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH AND NOTE THEM IN THE ARTICLE. This pathetic circus is a deletion feedback loop. People listing reasons to delete the article are distracting me from actually developing the article, leaving flaws for people to seize on as reasons to delete the article! Never mind that all the flaws given are surmountable problems and their use as justification for deletion are violations of multiple official policies including WP:PROBLEM, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOEFFORT among others that I'm not going to bother looking up because literally not one single user has listened to a single thing I've said. Abyssal (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being so belligerent, especially when you have no idea what I and others have or have not done. That fact of the matter is that I have read the entire discussion, including every single one of your lengthy replies to everyone who disagrees with you. WP:COATRACK does state that "[c]oatrack articles... can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject." I believe that to be true, and as you mentioned elsewhere, you disagree. Now, you have had your say on the matter and no one is forcing you to repeat yourself over and over and over. Rather than "fighting off people", get to work on improving the article if you think it can be saved. Location (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I knew that my edits wouldn't be deleted 5 minutes later, I would. If this AFD nomination hadn't happened most of the complaints raised here would already be resolved. As things stand I see little reason to suspect that even significant improvements would be enough to satisfy many of those advocating the deletion of the article because so many of the votes have been accompanied by justifications not based on, or contrary to, existing policy. By pure policy standards the article is already a keeper, being of a notable subject (in the same vein that people considered to be deities is a notable list), sourced with a reliable third party source (a book length ethnographic study by a sociologist), and all of the objections could be solved in the course of normal editing, meaning that in accordance with policies like WP:BEGIN, WP:PROBLEM, and WP:DEMOLISH they are not legitimate grounds for deletion even if they are legitimate flaws in the article. Abyssal (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the creator of this article is obviously upset about its early nomination, which has probably contributed to the unhelpful tone in this discussion. But the concept behind this list actually seems pretty reasonable to me. It's not completed yet and is being discussed while in a very premature stage; if the creator could add some additional information to the list (people considered angels by some other religious organization would be a good start) I think it would stand a very good chance of being kept; if there isn't time before this debate ends, my strong recommendation is that its content is userfied and worked on. I think in good faith, a better version could be re-added to article space and would be extremely likely to pass any subsequent AFD. The basic concept of this is certainly not "coatrack" nor is this article designed to push the point of view of a single denomination - it's just not finished yet, that's all. The inclusion criteria for the list are actually pretty well-defined and while the list should be a lot longer, it needn't be excessively long. TheGrappler (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2010 (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/List_of_people_said_to_be_angels&oldid=1138018694"