Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The Nature of Angelic Beings

The Nature of Angelic Beings
This is not a textbook. It seems to be an essay which analyses various biblical statements and tries to ascertain the nature of angelic beings. In short I feel it is a Personal Essay and original research. Thenub314 (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - clear OR and biased POV. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete OR, POV. --Pi zero (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I would support any attempt to turn this into a keep. I don't see any POV issue on the text (it is balanced and uses quotes from the Bible).
 * The issue with this book (and others also) is that we don't have any support for theological and philosophical works (or most of the cool subjects in humanities studies) besides looking into the subjects from an the historical perspective, which is sad but a change would require some fine tuning to the WIW policy (since discerning them from OR would be extremely difficult and would also increase the number of bizarre contributors, that in itself wouldn't be that bad, but it is a gray area).
 * Since we are "cleaning house", a look into the other works in this section is probably in order Miracles (very cool font) and Solidjah (both have the exact same issue), The Ten Commandments (POV), Yeshua and Kabbalah "Some people do not see the relationship of kabbalah and the teachings of Yahshuah. I was one of those seven years ago" (probably salvageable but some issues of POV and redaction) and probably more, this in just a few seconds, deletion can indeed be easy if you have the time and inclination... --Panic (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support the deletion of the four books mentioned here. Although a thorough reading would be extremely exhausting and tedious, I have skimmed the books and came to the conclusion that the books have the same problem, namely, they present facts that are supposed to be biased anyway. Take the events held in commemoration of the Tiananmen Square rebellion, for example. Ming Pao and Ta Kung Pao presented completely different reports. Ming Pao interviewed the used the protestor's estimates, interviewed anti-government people (but not pro-government ones!), and went into as much detail as possible to make it seem really big. Ta Kung Pao, on the other hand, made it as brief as possible, used the police's estimates, and put it somewhere nobody would care, so as to make it seem trivial. Neither of them are doing particularly good things, but Ta Kung Pao is better at concealing it. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Cut and dried OR and can never be anything else. Also a complete work of fantasy as it works from the assumption that angels exist and treats the Bible as being some kind of reference work - but that's just my opinion. QU TalkQu 10:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not enough support from references for not taking it as OR essay and hardly any effort to try to begin the discussion from a perspective even slightly close to NPOV. Like Panic, I felt some goodwill towards this book but unfortunately I can't see it as a keep. Abstracting a bit from this particular book, though, Panic's concerns about the difficulty in dealing with philosophical and religious subjects, however, are very pertinent. Following the same line of thought, I wouldn't agree with Kayau about "facts that are supposed to be biased". For instance, it is perfectly possible to write a book on, say, Christianity from a Christian perspective without loading it with POV. --Duplode (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)