Talk:Christian demonology/deletion

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I am moving these here as how to handle these pages is really a general question. I personally strongly object to any wholesale deletion, but believe some material needs to be merged and some POV stuff needs to be removed.—Eloquence 22:01, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

• Power of humans on demons -- More christianwiki Jesus Blows Goats 06:11, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Load of POV crap. Delete. PMC 07:08, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Merge with Demonology, remove POV, then delete. Davodd 07:22, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
    • Ditto. --GTRMP
    • Jesus Saves! 17:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, preserving anything worthwhile on Demonology. This article and the others you note below seem to be a semi-scholarly exploration of elements of Christian mythology. They might belong here in some form, but I don't think this is it. -mhr 07:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete it: it's preaching. Andy Mabbett 16:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some of this is weird, and needs a thorough rewrite, but hundreds of years ago this was what schoars studied. It's at least as encyclopaedic as yet another list of TV series episodes. DJ Clayworth 06:22, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. JDR
  • Delete. All of these articles are written as if they are the supreme truth. They should all be deleted and whatever there is to save should be picked up and combined into one article about Christianity's beliefs with respect to demons. AY 06:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Sexual relationships between demons and humans. Delete with Prejudice. Prurient speculation masquerading as fact. None of the authorities quoted are recent or particularly authoratative. Are there any reliable, twentyfirst century authorities who support the exisitence of Demons without the need to rehash fifth century theologians? ping 07:32, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it needs historical context. What fifth C theologians thought is precisely what should be in an encyclopaedia.
  • Keep. JDR
  • Keep. Useful article, just needs to be fixed up. --Louis Carroll (not really)
  • Merge with incubus/succubus. --GTRMP
  • Delete. All of these articles are written as if they are the supreme truth. They should all be deleted and whatever there is to save should be picked up and combined into one article about Christianity's beliefs with respect to demons. AY 06:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Power_of_the_demons -- More christianwiki -- Can this crap be moved to a christianwiki somewhere ? Jesus Blows Goats 06:15, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete as well. So close to worthless it hurts. PMC 07:08, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Merge with Demonology, remove POV, then delete. Davodd 07:22, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
    • Jesus Saves! 17:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. -mhr 07:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete it: it's preaching. Andy Mabbett 16:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. See below. DJ Clayworth 06:22, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge Demonology. JDR
  • Clean up, NPOV and merge with Christian demonology rather than Demonology. As I mentioned below I'm a Christian who thinks that there should be some level of information about this sort of stuff, but the writer has reproduced much of what can already be found in Christian Demonology. Why not demonology? Because that is a more general subject while Power_of_the_demons is written from a more Christian perspective. Neilinoz 23:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of these articles are written as if they are the supreme truth. They should all be deleted and whatever there is to save should be picked up and combined into one article about Christianity's beliefs with respect to demons. AY 06:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Mission_of_the_demons -- More christianwiki Jesus Blows Goats 06:17, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Unlike Things that open the door to Demonic Oppression this one is actually mostly written as an encyclopedia article. Maybe rename but keep. moink 06:18, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Rename possibly, tweak a wee bit for NPOV/factuality...but do keep. PMC 07:04, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Jesus Saves! 17:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Merge with Demonology, remove POV, then delete. Davodd 07:22, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete -mhr 07:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I second Moink's solution for this article. - Puffy jacket 08:19, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete it: it's preaching. Andy Mabbett 16:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. See below DJ Clayworth 06:22, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, NPOV concepts. JDR
  • It has been NPOV'd, you can keep it now. --Louis Carroll (not really)
  • Merge with Demonology. --GTRMP
  • Delete. All of these articles are written as if they are the supreme truth. They should all be deleted and whatever there is to save should be picked up and combined into one article about Christianity's beliefs with respect to demons. AY 06:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Modern_Deliverance -- As mentioned above, this is (arguably) another in the demon power series, which I now affectionally call "christianwiki". Jesus Blows Goats 07:30, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Put anything useful into Demonology, then delete. PMC 07:47, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Jesus Saves! 17:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete it: it's preaching. Andy Mabbett 16:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep, NPOV concepts. JDR
• Delete; says nothing not covered better elsewhere. --GTRMP
• This article needs to be merged with Spiritual warfare. What both articles describe is a religious practice amongst Charismatic and Pentecostal churches in the western world, and cannot be merged into the general topic of demonology. In fact, this particular article points out that a number of its protagonists have been found to have lied about their particular spiritual experiences, which gives it a reasonably good NPOV flavour. In fact, Spiritual warfare, an article which has not been under discussion, is far less NPOV than this one. Both need to be merged, NPOV and cleaned up. While I have a Christian faith I personally find this sort of teaching in the church to be absolute garbage. Nevertheless, it does deserve an article all of its own. Neilinoz 23:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of these articles are written as if they are the supreme truth. They should all be deleted and whatever there is to save should be picked up and combined into one article about Christianity's beliefs with respect to demons. AY 06:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• The_Antichrist_and_the_last_days -- Another (arguably) in the demon power series, which looks to me like a Bible commentary. Jesus Blows Goats 07:32, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • We should get this guy (Whoever it is) a website of his/her own for a present...then s/he'd stop plaguing us with this nonsense. Same as above, put anything useful someplace else (Apocalypse or Antichrist perhaps) then delete. PMC 07:47, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • All of these articles were created by User:The Warlock, who (to my knowledge) has since left wikipedia. --Raul654 08:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • ...and whose User page is offensive. Andy Mabbett 16:46, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete it: it's preaching. Andy Mabbett 16:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Merge with Book of Revelation Jesus Saves! 17:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Ditto. --GTRMP
  • Keep. Merging may be desirable though. JDR
  • Delete. I am a Christian who has been exposed to this thinking, and while it is important to include it in an encylopaedia, the fact is that there is already a more than adequate article on the Antichrist which deals with this issue in a more NPOV way. What this article is describing is a form of Premillennial understanding which is already described in Millennialism. So delete it simply because Wikipedia already has this information in its pages. Neilinoz 23:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of these articles are written as if they are the supreme truth. They should all be deleted and whatever there is to save should be picked up and combined into one article about Christianity's beliefs with respect to demons. AY 06:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I think much of the ridicule attached to these articles comes from the fact that people have read their fancies and theories into the Scriptures; they have read Milton's Paradise Lost but have neglected the Book of Job; they have considered the experiences of Luther instead of the Epistles of Peter and Jude.

Demonology is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the revealed truth given to man in the Bible. Seeing as throughout the Scriptures Satan is set forth as the greatest enemy of God and man, we should seek to know all we can about such a being. Too long has Satan been a subject of ridicule instead of fear.

I must admit that these are not things for the spiritually young; anyone who has ever had a ministry involving demonology almost cringes when the subject in broached, especially in public forums. Jesus Saves! 23:40, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for this. (edit to clarify my thoughts: I concur with Eloquence's statement below: If the topic can be handled in a purely informational manner, great, if it slides into essay, persuasion, and personal opinion, it's inappropriate for inclusion in a neutral encyclopedia.) - Puffy jacket 23:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The discussion of the subject is certainly appropriate, it just needs to be done in an NPOV manner. Warlock has done good research on the subject but he has occasionally slipped into an analytical essay tone that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, the same goes for the page titles.—Eloquence

With or without NPOV, do we really need 24 articles on demons? As someone with a medical background, I am also a little alarmed by the unedited original texts, which (unless done deliberately tongue-in-cheek) smack of religious mania. Anjouli 05:13, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"revealed truth given to man in the Bible" Isn't this christianmyth POV? Sure, there are lots of "wonderful" bible sermons and commentaries that could be, and are written, but how many of them belong in wikipedia? "How to save jews", "Why jews will burn in hell", "Why moslems will burn in hell", "How a christian woman submits to her husband", "What will happen to christians and pagans in the end times", "How to effectively convert pagans", the list of christianmyth commentary articles is perhaps endless? I'd suggest moving all this stuff to some christianwiki, which can treat the bible as science, and science as demon inspired delusions of human pride, and so forth. Pagan 06:53, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think Christianity should be treated the same way as any other belief system held by a minority, from Greek myths (which nobody believes any more) to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics (which some still believe), to the philosophies of Ayn Rand (I'm too afraid to know who believes those). I don't see why there shouldn't be as many articles about demons as contributors can find something interesting to occupy. The information on those pages can be drawn from the Enuma Elish, the Bible, the Qur'an, Paradise Lost, or even Sandman, provided that it is correctly attributed to its source. Whether each reader believes in the truth of that source will then automatically resolve any issues over POV. So I vote against any wholesale deletion - by all means edit the pages as necessary, and make individual deletion nominations for anything that is empty after that and can't make a useful redirect. Onebyone 16:23, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agreed with Onebyone. Most of the stuff here is valid historical information at the very least. DJ Clayworth 06:22, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The point is that this material is not presented as historical data. ping 07:28, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's as simple as adding "in Christianity" to the start of the page. As I say, though, what is actually needed is more specific attribution to sources. It matters what information is taken directly from the Bible, what is from Malleus Maleficarum, who has drawn the conclusions from the primary sources, and what their credentials are. All these cautions also apply to articles on science or computing, of course, it's just that there's more disagreement in the case of demonology as to how the sources should be interpreted. Onebyone 00:51, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is simple. A historical belief in demons is interesting and, maybe, valid history. A modern belief in demons such as is apparantly shown by the author of this series, is delusional and not valid encyplepdic material. ping 08:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can assure you that the author of this series does not believe in demons.—Eloquence

This series of articles has been NPOV'd pretty much and I don't think it should be deleted now. --Louis Carroll (not really)

This material is patently not valid for an encyclopedia. It really should be deleted.- Marcus Faulstone.

A lot of this material is redundant and spread over a morass of entries; if they were all consolidated into one entry (like, say, Demonology), they would be worthwhile. --GTRMP

All of these articles are written as if they are the supreme truth. They should all be deleted and whatever there is to save should be picked up and combined into one article about Christianity's beliefs with respect to demons. Why is it up for vote anyway?!!! Are there real people who believe this stuff. Is it not obvious that demons exist nowhere else but within ourselves. Greed, Hate and Ignorance are there names. That the Bible alludes to them is plausible. I suggest that these articles be moved to the bad joke page. This is an Encyclopedia for God's sake. We are not preaching Bible here. AY 06:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)