Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian-New Age dialogue

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. joe decker^{talk to me} 18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian-New Age dialogue

Christian-New Age dialogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Essay Jac16888 ^Talk 17:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose deletion. The article is well written and is a balanced examination of the relationship between Christians and New Agers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothand (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• How can we stop the process of deletion. As per the instructions, a paragraph addressing the complaint of the person who suggested deletion was added and noted in the edit summary box. Then the deletion notice was deleted as per instructions. But now it seems to have come back in a different form. How do we get this settled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian-New Age Dialogue (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  See WP:Guide to deletion for an explanation of the process. Basically, a discussion will take place here on whether the article conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I read this article several weeks ago and found it well-written, neutral, and dealing effectively with the difficulties of dialogue among religious/spiritual groups with opposing, even conflictual points of view. To me this seems a highly relevant topic, one worth keeping rather than deleting. Not sure why the deletion was suggested. NML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.125.214 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as essay. As well, at least two of the three accounts voting above appear to be the same user and I'm filing an SPI. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per IP 202.124.74.156 Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, and that the article was written by what it seems to be sock/meatpuppets. Conflict of interest might also be involved (might). Rabbitfang 03:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SYNTH Concept does not exist except where constructed for this Wikipedia article out of disparate sources. --Jayron32 04:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. See WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH. Marokwitz (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Please do not delete. I want to make very sure I am properly identifying myself here. My account name is Christian-New Age Dialogue and I am the one who wrote the comment yesterday re "How can we stop the process of deletion." Please do see the defense I made last night re the thoughts that there is sockpuppetry involved. I responded very fully to those thoughts on the proper page. So please, before you think about deleting the because of a sockpuppetry violation, see what I wrote. I think that will put that whole thing to rest. But re the more important issue of content, I am very, very surprised that some comments have been negative. While I would be very happy for any suggestions of improvement, I do think this article is a valuable resource for anyone involved with ecumenism. I, by the way, didn't write the piece but I did assist the writer with editing, etc. And I know she spent many, many months researching the piece so it could be both informative and unbiased. I don't mean to be longwinded here, but I'm simply very saddened at this turn of events.--Christian-New Age Dialogue (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Christian-New Age Dialogue

• Please don't delete. "I just noticed that this page is up for deletion -- and I can't for the life of me imagine why (!?). Though I'm quite familiar with both the terms "Christian" and "New Age", I'm not a practicing "Christian" -- nor am I much of an adherent of "new age" principles. That said, however, I find any discourse of the two subjects fascinating and invigorating to my spirit and intellect. Similar to political discussions that can be anywhere from far right to far left, open discussion of the theories involved help all parties come to their own personal feelings about the issues involved. Knowledge, after all, is power. My own spiritual practices are more of an amalgamation of various spiritual practices with a dash of free-will thrown into the mix. This is why I'm SO fascinated with any discussions between folks of different faiths, beliefs, and paths. Without lively discussion, how can people come to their own conclusions -- conclusions which, as a result of the discourse, may be moved along into new depths of richness and knowing? I sincerely hope that Wikipedia will allow this page to remain -- thereby encouraging a (possibly lively) discussion between folks interesting in both Christian and New Age dialogues. Thanks for your own input! That's what it's all about! [Michael Walker, Washington, DC, http://dreamwalkergroup.com] --DreamwalkerGroup (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  Encouraging dialogue is a noble endeavor, and I wish you luck with it; however it is not part of Wikipedia's core mission. Wikipedia isn't a free-for-all, it is a website with a narrow focus, and that is to write a quality encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more information about things Wikipedia isn't, and Wikipedia:Five pillars for Wikipedia's cornerstone mission and philosophy. Good luck with your endeavor to encourage dialogue, but please respect the mission of Wikipedia as well. --Jayron32 17:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is an excellent forum presenting the many aspects of Christian thought and New Age Philosophy. What better way to understand one another than to participate in dialog. It would be a shame to delete this bridge-building quarterly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.161.168 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:SOAPBOX (as per items 1,2,4,5 in part) nor does it appear noteable WP:N.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is impossible to understand why there should be any objection to the lucid entry on Christian-New Age dialogue. To say that it is "unclear" or "reads like a religious pamphlet" indicates either lack of reading comprehension or biased bigotry. Whatever one's view, Wikipedia should be a forum for dialogue, not a target for censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.196.121 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Actually, Wikipedia is not a forum for dialogue; its scope was defined almost a decade ago, and "dialogue" was not one of its missions. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more info. --Jayron32 17:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as original essay. I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but it is simply neither encyclopedic as a topic nor in its presentation. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete this is not censorship, this type of work doesn't fit within the scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for an essay.Gee totes (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

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.