Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youvan's Apologetics

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youvan's Apologetics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is original research - an extended quotation from the writings of Douglas Youvan, copied from his website. (It is not a copyvio, because the site's top page releases its content as PD). JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John: I don't see how the primary website for Youvan's biography could be considered unreliable or OR. It’s not-for-profit; the biography (in progress) can be freely downloaded. I know Youvan’s questions are irritating to most people. That is expected in polemics. In any debate over deletion, do you really believe that our editors can free themselves of faith-based POV’s? Youvan's questions could cause hate and anger in some editors. Very few people are open to a change of faith and they will find any reason they can to delete Youvan’s Apologetics. Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 18:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question: If a journal or newspaper picks up this deletion, or deletion debate, and publishes Youvan's questions in apologetics, does that somehow make this article reliable and not in violation of NOR? Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 18:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier discussion as the deletion began (in italics): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Teapotgeorge, top banner reads: "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion." Other editors can determine for themselves if that is an obvious POV to attack someone like Youvan in favor of someone like Dawkings. I thought we wanted wikipedia to be a place for people to find reliable information. TeaPot is on the verge of censorship and defamation. Youvan is a living person. Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 16:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy for "nonsense"... my mistake, on a quick glance it did appear to be absolute nonsense...I can see now that it is just advertising.TeapotgeorgeTalk 16:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC) (end quote) Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 18:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have replied to these points on the author's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you again politely to refrain from personal attacks.Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Nothing on Google apart from this article and the website it is copied from. No reliable secondary sources.Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per norm. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – A delete is not necessary. The opening sentence could be merged into the Douglas Youvan piece and a redirect on Youvan's Apologetics back to Douglas Youvan is all that is needed. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have already merged the opening sentence back to Douglas Youvan, with a link to his website page, here. I would not object to making this title a redirect to that section, but I think this debate is still necesary in order to convince the article author that we cannot publish the full text. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment author has requested deletion [1] DC T•C 21:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think Shoessss' redirect is a good idea, and have suggested that to her. Don't let's delete till she thinks about that. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author, who had requested deletion, agrees to redirect, so per WP:IAR I have implemented that and withdraw my deletion nomination. Unless either of the "delete" !voters, who I will consult, objects, I request, as nominator, that this AfD be closed as "Redirect". JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too withdraw my deletion request, merge and redirect is eminently sensible.Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already redirected I do not think that the list of questions that made up this article constituted an encyclopaedic article. The merge might perhaps have consisted of a paragraph rather than a mere single sentence. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel Delete Please cancel my delete vote. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Minima c (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is original research without any reliable sources independent of the author of this research. My recommendation has nothing to do with my own religious POV. I would support the article if reliable independent sources demonstrating notability existed, whether or not it corresponded with or challenged my own religious beliefs. That shouldn't affect AfD debates one whit. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 9 November 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.