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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Gnosticism[edit]

Modern Gnosticism describes the personal theories of the article's author, synthesized from a motley collection of philosophers, novelists and films. It thus constitutes original research. It began as a "modern mysticism" section which (s)he first added to the Demon article, but then removed and expanded to form the Modern Gnosticism article after its verifiability was questioned by other editors. After much debate and coaching (sorry, there's a huge amount to read there) the article reads (at first) a little more like a bona-fide article, however I'm fairly convinced that almost nothing in the article is representative of anyone's theories but the author's. The name of the article itself, "modern gnosticism" is somewhat arbitrary (the author also suggested "modern mysticism"), and is not an established technical term that would distinguish it from Gnosticism in modern times. I am not suggesting a merge with Gnosticism in modern times since most of the material here is very personal and ideosynchratic, and any reuse would involve substantial rewrite. Fuzzypeg 11:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nathcer 13:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I'm a patient fellow, and I'm familiar with mainstream Gnostic views, and my eyes started to glaze over after thirty seconds. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 13:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, let the author come back and try for him/herself to add anything meaningful from it to the Gnosticism in modern times article (I do not entertain high hopes). Lundse 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. — Per nom, but please note that, once this is deleted, he's going to edit war to re-include this text elsewhere. Not saying this should change our decision, just something to look out for. Alienus 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, per RGTraynor, and per WP:BALLS. I see nothing approaching a fact here, and I read the whole thing (ouch). Barno 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Gods, I recommend either a pot of strong tea or a glass of a strong drink. You're a tougher man than I am, and I applaud your perserverance, even your sanity must now be in doubt. (grins) RGTraynor 15:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• But I need no sanity; I have been endowed with the Secret Hidden Knowledge and am therefore empowered to get along without ordinary people's logic or rationality. (This is the most sense I can ever make out of tracts like the nominated article.) Barno 20:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I read it all, but I have to say they lost me with the camel case in "TechGnosticism". --Saforrest 22:37, 20 April 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.