Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Does Evil Exist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Does Evil Exist[edit]

Fictitious urban legend. See [1] --Gary D 00:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, no matter if it's fictitious or verifiable, it's a minor anecdote and not really encyclopedic material -- Ferkelparade π 00:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not snopes. This isn't important enough an urban legends to warrant an article. Shane King 01:21, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. See also [2]. Not a noteworthy Internet phenomenon or a notable urban legend. Far less widespread than the trip to Disneyworld you could get by forwarding email and testing Microsoft's email-tracking software. Far less widespread than the many, many university libraries that are sinking into the ground because the architect failed to allow for the weight of the books. I can't prove it and Snopes didn't finger it as a copyvio, but I bet it is... it sounds for all the world like something out of the Readers' Digest or Guideposts... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedic in any way, whether false or true. The fact that it's clearly false makes it that much more deserving of a solid yank. DreamGuy 01:48, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource unless it's a copyvio. Is still valid content, although not of the 'pedia. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: All hail the Internet, misinformer of the world! This basic answer to theodicy is pretty darned old, going back to the 17th c. Another explanation is that deviation belongs to man; that which is obedient to God is good, the potential is not the existence, for the existence creates itself. Anyway, it wasn't Einstein, and, if it were Einstein, it would only be a demonstration that he had been going to a church school and learned his lessons. Geogre 02:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. See, as User:Gary_D said. --jpgordon{gab} 02:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Cdc 03:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Boy, did Einstein ever teach those atheists a thing or two! They won't be showing their faces around God's America any time soon! Delete as another crap article that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -R. fiend 04:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I tried replacing Einstein's name in the punchline with that of Aleister Crowley, feeling strongly that the story is just as true and just as plausible that way. Actually, since Einstein's views were complex—he described himself as "a disciple of Spinoza"—and politically unsound, the story might be even more plausible if told with Einstein's name as that of the professor, and, oh, I don't know, let's say Donald Knuth as the wise student. It's a little tricky because the student's name when revealed has to trump the professor's name with regard to intelligence. No, Einstein won't do in the professor's role... too smart... hard to think of a well-known name that would be recognized as "really smart but less smart than Donald Knuth." And of course Donald Knuth isn't very well known outside of nerdish circles... I wonder what Marilyn vos Savant's religious views are? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Suggest that the author (an anon) have a look at Wikinfo whose policies may be broad enough to want this. I don't think Wikisource would. Andrewa 06:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think ULs belong here. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 06:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --MPerel 09:38, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • I dissent on the grounds that I have received this in an e-mail before, much to my annoyance, so it's probably at least halfway notable. Keep. Widespread urban legends are encyclopedic, and can be quite fascinating, actually. Everyking 11:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: What would you think of a merge and redirect to urban legend, briefly summarising the content rather than quoting the entire text? No change of vote. Andrewa 20:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • A good plan. I have changed my vote to delete. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 21:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Not a bad idea, but I'd prefer a list page for it instead, because examples could go on forever. OK, I'll drop my keep vote. Everyking 21:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nothing wrong with an urban legend on wikipedia. -- Crevaner 21:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 21:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, its interesting and well-written. -- Old Right 23:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Note to sysop: compare user pages of Old Right and Crevaner. There is a pattern of these usernames casting votes in VfD discussions, invariably the same way, within a few hours of each other. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be redirected, or at least disambiguated, to something like The problem of evil or some other philosophic concept? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:36, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic trivia. Indrian 23:49, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Urban legends are not inherently unencyclopedic, but this doesn't deserve to be examined in full detail, and without detail, what does it amount to but "A big important professor said that evil existed and this smart young guy ran circles around him logically and some versions say the smart young guy was Einstein"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. BTW, one of the many aspects of the book When Bad Things Happen to Good People that I appreciated when I read it was how effectively Rabbi Kushner makes mincemeat out of arguments like this. Kushner smarter than Einstein? Probably not, but smarter than this pseudo-Einstein, certainly. --Christofurio 04:59, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopedic material // Liftarn 19:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are articles on Theodicy and the the problem of evil, already. --BM 03:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Antandrus 03:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not --FOo 04:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Well written. If it in fact can be put under FDL. drange_net
  • Delete- I concur with the users that point out that this is Snopes material, not Wikipedia material. At the very most, it is only worth a brief reference in the Urban legend article. --Edeans 00:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)