Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wholeness

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 04:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wholeness

This page is clearly a non-NPOV product of original research. I was willing to just slap an NPOV tag on it and leave it be, but as John Gohde points out, that's only a temporary measure. In terms of permanent measures that can fix the problems with this page, the only thing I can think of is deletion. If someone else can think of a better way to fix the page, I'll take it, but for now, I vote to remove this page. --Carl 17:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Snowspinner 20:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP - A clear violation of WP:POINT. Pure sour grapes on the part of a bunch of malcontents who think that the NPOV guidelines don't apply to them. {{NPOV}} must be discussed in talk and is a temporary measure whereby the person posting the notice has time to revise the article. Clearly nothing was changed because nothing needed to be changed. This is a perfectly valid article, but even if it is not their clear violation of WP:POINT means keep the article, revised it, or otherwise, STOP whining about what somebody else has written in good faith. -- John Gohde 10:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not proposing to delete the article to prove a point. I'm proposing to delete the article because I don't believe it can be fixed. You say that it not being changed after receiving the NPOV tag is proof that it is NPOV. I say it's suggests that no one saw this article (since it's not a topic most people would look up normally) and those who did see it couldn't think of a way to fix it. Obviously, I don't want the article deleted so quickly that we can't get any opinions on how to fix it (or even if it needs to be fixed at all, as Snowspinner and I believe and you, John, apparently don't). But in terms of permanent solutions to the problems with the article-- namely while the ideas in it are interesting, they strike me as original research-- deletion is all I can think of. If you disagree with my assertion that the article is original research, I invite you to show me a number of links to reputable and unrelated websites which use the term "Wholeness" in the same way that it's used in the article. If we can do that, it will be a good first step to making it seem less like original research. If we can't do that, then I think it would be best to delete the article because Wikipedia isn't a place for new ideas to emerge but one for old ideas to be categorized. --Carl 11:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The first step in posting a successful temporary {{NPOV}} notice is to specify in Talk what is precisely wrong with the article. Mushy feel good talk does not qualify as discussing it in talk. -- John Gohde 16:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • John is right - an NPOV tag needs a note on talk as to why the tag is there, and preferably some suggestions of what to do about it. Though IMO "this is just POV original research" would qualify if you thought that - David Gerard 19:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of how it was nominated, the article looks entirely like unverifyable original research to me. --Plek 19:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As it stands, it is a personal essay, original research. As for whether "wholeness" as a concept is an encyclopedia topic: I doubt it; but if it is, then it is better to delete this and let someone else start from scratch some day. The nomination could have been more crisp, I'm afraid. The stuff about the NPOV tag seems to be entirely a red herring. --BM 19:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original research. Keep if third-party references can be found and the refs actually support it Redirection to holism seems best and will discourage recreation - David Gerard 19:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 19:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. After a bit more research, another possibility is to simply to make it a redirect to holism. I'm not sure "wholeness" is the search term that someone researching "holism" would enter, but if it isn't deleted, I'd favor the redirect. --BM 20:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Angr 20:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Holism. (Protect redirect if needed.) Present content should be deleted; personal essay, original research, unsourced and unreferenced and has been around for well over six months during which people have had a chance to add sources or references and have not done so. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Wholeness are holism aren't quite the same, but I think that holism sufficiently captures the relevant ideas in wholeness, and unlike wholeness is a generally recognized concept. --Carl 01:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, and by its very nature not salvageable. -- Cleduc 05:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essay, not enyclopedic. Kosebamse 16:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to holism, which is what this article is actually referring to in its roundabout and POV way. — Gwalla | Talk 03:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 08:53 Z

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.