Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena

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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Article's problems can be fixed without outright deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena

The article Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena is at best a collection of less than serious newspaper clippings. This type of whacky article probably reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. I looked at the image of Mother Teresa supposedly seen on a piece of food in a store. It is just hopeless. What if someone notices the face of Einstein on a piece of fruit? Will there be an article on that in Wikipedia? There is more material on this topic than on some serious works of art or some scientific or serious religious topics. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, this type of semi-sane articles need to be deleted. History2007 (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the AFD nomination, it had not been formatted correctly or listed. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although some content does not cite its sources, and may be original research, the article meets the notability guideline. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and probably consider renaming Acheropite. Weird and wacky it may be, but Acheropites are a recognised and fairly commonly occuring class of phenomena, and have been for centuries. The word comes from the Greek for "not by human hand" and the most famous is probably the Turin Shroud (although I guess that depends on your view about its true origins). The Nun Bun (Mother Teresa in a small snack food item) made headlines all around the world. See the Italian Wikipedia's treatment of the term - it's a stub, but it does explain itself - and a few easily accessed examples: [1], [2], [3] to demonstrate its reporting in the media. Whether we change the title or not (and I'll suggest it on the talk page), this subject meets WP:N and WP:V as a description of a social phenomenon, whatever your views on those who ascribe supernatural origins to the items. It just needs to be written descriptively from a NPOV. I'll have a go. Ka renjc 20:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete If these are sample opinions on reasons for keeping, then how about renaming the entire system "Wierdpedia". Inviting wacky content is not serious. But then if most of the planet wants to read about the Nun Bun, their brains will probably find this page interesting too... sigh... History2007 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Are you raising the question of limits for the inclusion of material? -- Alan Liefting (talk)

Ummm.... Does the nominator get a second chance to say delete? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and probably divide. The relationships to other articles needs to be osiered on the article talk pages, not here. DGG (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The material is referenced and is of interest. It may not fit in with what has been traditionally incorporated into other encyclopedias. Need to bear in mind that WP tells it like it is - warts and all. OTHER encyclopaedia's are influenced by the prevailing religious climate and they are therefore biased against articles that show religion in a poor light. -- Alan Liefting talk) - 23:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got that right Alan. This article is an embarrassment to religion. I wonder if a Cardinal would eat the NunBun if offered... History2007 (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An embarrassing article is not a justification for deletion. WP is not censored. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, censored it is not. Respectable? I guess it is not either. Let m eleave it at that. I guess I expected too much from Wikipedia. I give up. History2007 (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this phenomenon does not show religious belief in a flattering light. That, however, is not Wikipedia's job. Ka renjc 20:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Respectable" is not a word that should be used to describe WP. Respectable is to some degree a loaded term. WP should on the whole attain a degree of authority and thoroughness. Adding an article such as this one gives WP an added increment of thoroughness. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A reasonably well-defined topic with substantial coverage. It'd be good, however, to find a better title. Nsk92 (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both your points. How about Religious pareidolia as a title? It is currently a redir to this page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is not about a single citing or a handful of citings -- it is about the general phenomenon that there have been and will be continued sightings that are perceived by some (however ludicrous in my opinion) as a message from God or one of His prophets or messengers. As this perception has been widely covered over a considerable amount of time, the phenomenon of this perception is notable. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it stands, the article is a handful of sightings throughout modern history. However, the possiblity of sourcing the article from material in here, here, here, here, or even here exists. Article should be improved but the capacity for improvement is what keeps it from deletion. Protonk (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and then shoot me, please. "Less than serious newspaper" coverage. We look at verifiability, not seriousness. "This type of whacky article probably reduces the credibility of Wikipedia." If it's verifiable and reliably sourced, your assertion fails. "What if someone notices the face of Einstein on a piece of fruit? Will there be an article on that in Wikipedia?" If there's significant discussion of such a phenomena in the media, it just might be included in this article. "If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously [then we must delete this article]..." Sorry, I missed that particular criteria for deletion. Funny enough, I did find this, and I think that might be what you're asking for here. user:j (aka justen) 18:07, 18 August 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.