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 was no consensus to delete, with a recommendation to rename the article. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who went to heaven alive[edit]

List of people who went to heaven alive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I do not believe this topic deserves an article. Putting aside the correctable issue of a misleading title, a "list of people" is inappropriate in this case. An article on the supposed phenomenon of persons entering heaven while still living may be notable and should contain examples but this is not that article and, as far as I know, that article does not exist. An online search for information reveals that there are plenty of sources about Elijah, Serach, and Enoch that mention the aforementioned entry into heaven while still alive. However, that information belongs in the individual articles. So, I propose that this article be deleted because:

1. The article does not prove the notability of the subject by providing at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial secondary sources, and I have been unable to prove the topic's notability through my own search.
2. The article does not provide clear standards of inclusion or exclusion, in violation of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). For instance, not too long ago, this list boasted Cheech Marin (see diff).
3. Any listing of the handful of characters who supposedly entered heaven while still alive should be contained in an article on the phenomenon itself rather than existing as a stand-alone list.

As I believe the problem to be endemic to the topic rather than the just the article, I am skipping the usual steps of tagging the article with various cleanup tags or requesting that the article's author (inactive for a month) try to fix it. -- Black Falcon 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of the changes made to the article within the past 20 hours (see diff), I am changing my recommendation to delete and now believe the article is worthy of being kept. The changes have made this a wholly different article that proves the notability of the topic, provides clear(er) standards of inclusion (as clear as we'll have with 2000 year old texts that are disputed), and addresses the general concept of ascension into heaven rather than merely listing persons who could fall in that category.

That said, I do not think this AFD should be closed early (i.e., I do not withdraw my nomination). A few editors have already suggested deletion, and even though their comments apply to the old version, a speedy close is no longer possible. Additionally, other editors may be able to contribute to the article or to the discussion regarding a new title, currently ongoing at the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete is this a joke?--Sefringle 03:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I did think of ((prod))ding it. The only reason I didn't was the abundance of sources that discuss the topic specifically in relation to Elijah, Serach, or Enoch. The issue is that their synthesis into an article (note: not a list) would probably require original research (and there's still the point that such analysis should belong in the individual articles rather than a list). -- Black Falcon 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete if it's not a joke, it's a very minor literary reference Citicat 03:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is most definitely not a joke. Having been educated in a rigorous Orthodox Jewish day school, I have the background in Midrash to recognize the claims made about Enoch and Elijah, and the inclusion of Serach does not surprise me. The topic of people ascending to heaven is extremely minor within Jewish tradition, let alone in the context of a general-interest encyclopedia. The event should be noted in Enoch and Elijah; I presume it already is. YechielMan 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. I would love to believe in this but fails WP:ATT and WP:V. Morenooso 04:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Resurgent insurgent 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. I would love to believe in this but fails WP:ATT and WP:V. Morenooso 04:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This was accidentally double-posted (see diff) by another user. -- Black Falcon 19:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the list could be improved enormously. I take deep offense at calling this a joke. If you don't know enough about a particular religion, or religion in general, don't go calling subjects related to what people hold sacred a "joke". I'm no expert myself, but I know "People who went to heaven alive" is usually called "translation into heaven" or "assumption into heaven" or "ascension into heaven". From Christianity you could add Jesus of Nazareth and (at least in Roman Catholic doctrine) Mary, mother of Jesus. The day commemorating her assumption into heaven is a holy day of obligation for Catholics. See Assumption of Mary. It's also celebrated in art. See: Assumption of the Virgin Mary. This hardly indicates that the "topic of people ascending to heaven is extremely minor within Jewish tradition, let alone in the context of a general-interest encyclopedia." (Emphasis added.) Muslims might also beg to differ, since many believe that Muhammad also ascended into heaven at the Dome of the Rock. Wikipedia has a short article on it: Kitab al-Miraj. In Polynesian (or at least Maori) religion, there also seems to be a person (maybe more) who ascended into heaven, but I don't have time to read through Rupe's Ascent into Heaven. If you scroll through these search results, you'll see plenty of examples, although it shades off into myth, or at least people we have no historical knowledge of. Apollonius of Tyana is also said to have been assumed into heaven.

As a subject the list is certainly important enough for an encyclopedia. Since some explanation of which religion(s) consider certain figures to have ascended bodily into heaven is necessary to help a reader navigate through the topic, so a category would be inadequate. I haven't found any source that considers all bodily assumptions into heaven from all religions, but it seems to me it isn't origional research to simply state that the concept exists in various religions and describe how each religion treats the concept in theology and tradition. One day I expect we'll get individual articles on bodily assumption in Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, etc. Perhaps a fuller account of how assumption into heaven relates to how these people are understood is best left to the individual articles on these people, but something is needed for this concept, and I think a list with short descriptions is a worthy start. Noroton 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as problematic but salvageable. Although not a fan of lists, the nominators first two points, I think, are not valid. #1...Most, if not all, biblical person's existence and actions are attested to only through that document, all other sources derive from that and they are abundant. #2...Vandalism to an article is not a reason for deletion of that article and standards for inclusion could be addressed through a more qualifying title for the article. #3 Raises the best point but could be addressed through renaming...in Christian/Jewish/Muslim theology..., or some such way. I hope the creator of the article can tighten it up during the nomination process. killing sparrows 06:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My second point was not vandalism, but rather a lack of clear criteria for what consitutes "going to heaven alive". Given the vague inclusion criteria, the addition of Cheech Marin technically was not vandalism. -- Black Falcon 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. I'll add the comment that I can see the value of this list where someone reads about Enoch or Mary or Mohamed ascending to heaven and then from this list, (as a 'see also') is able to compare and contrast the phenomenom in other traditions. FWIW --killing sparrows 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATTR and WP:V Chevinki 07:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and give it a more appropriate name - something like Religious belief in the possibility to enter heaven alive. It is a pretty well sourced theme in theology and comparative religions, so I do not see problems with WP:ATTR or WP:V.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Tnomad 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It probably needs a better title, but as Noroton and Ioannes said, this is an important theological point in several religions. Pinball22 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Certainly there is theological importance regarding those who have went bodily to heaven, but the issue here is if a list of such people is important. I think that the individual pages of those who have is enough to cover the subject, and that seeing a list of them is of no importance. Also note that no article pages link to this one at all. Tarc 13:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Bad Jokes and Deleted Nonsense. At least it made me laugh. DTD_(speak)
• The topic deserves coverage, as a comparison of the various doctrines within each faith stating that certain people ascended into heaven, but the format of a list is misleading. How about moving it to, "Religious doctrines of ascension into heaven" or something along those lines? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete There is enough misinformation on Wikipedia without adding religious psychobabble masquerading as truth. NL 29 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.214.34.243 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. We can't pick and choose what "religious psychobabble" (to quote the unregistered user above) to keep and what not to keep. Barring a Wikipedia policy banning religion-based articles, this topic which has non-trivial sources cited (though more would be desirable) has every bit as much a right to have an article as immaculate conception. It does, however, need to be given a different title and it should not be treated as a list. 23skidoo 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:N.--Bryson 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A bit confusing in the title, and at first brush a lot of folks thought it might be a joke or something. But since it's clearly not intended for humor, it's confusing. Anyway, concur with the nominator. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since this article is undergoing some revision, editors in this discussion should take a look back later and see if their opinions still apply. I've begun to make some changes, many more are needed and by editors who are more familiar with the various religions involved, but the article is already a lot different from what it was when nominated. I think this can and should evolve into something more than a list. I'm starting a discussion on the article's talk page about what to name it.Noroton 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator. In response to the comment by 218.214.34.243 above, I ask that this AFD not be turned into a discussion about religion or faith. As I mentioned in my nomination, the issue of a misleading title is correctable and not a reason to delete. My position from the start was this: an article on Translation into heaven may be notable and would include a list of such people, but such a list should not exist by itself without sources or additional prose content. If this list can be modified to that purpose, I will modify my position to simply requesting a change of title. -- Black Falcon 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree This should be a discussion on an article, not beliefs, and I don't think anything more needs to be said here about the nature of the beliefs. Noroton 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Note that this article has been substantially improved since its nomination. Encyclopedic topic in comparative theology, reasonably well sourced. Should have a better name, though. Sandstein 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename - the title is awful but the topic is encyclopedic because of its importance in major world religions. There are many solutions besides changing the name including splitting this up by religion. In any event, the article should be kept and improved rather than deleted. --Richard 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep It needs renaming, but considering the development since the nomination deletion shouldn't even be considered anymore. A.J.A. 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Far more notable than List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority, for example. Article should probably be renamed. — goethean ॐ 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The work on this article is commendable and I would be able to support a move to a better title. Please note the existence of Translation (religion) which itself is a disambig page that mentions bodily ascent into heaven. Translation (disambiguation) reveals a number of other Translation (x) articles in existence so name choice an integration might be a little complex. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about some variation on "Ascension"? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Name-changing discussion is now taking place at Talk:List of people who went to heaven alive#Suggestion to change the name of the article. Please make any name-change suggestions there and then this discussion can concentrate more on whether to keep or delete the article. Noroton 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The article needs major improvement and a more appropriate name, but it has the potential to become a valid article. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This certainly isn't a joke, and there are sources for the individuals given. However, there are significant WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems not solvable simply by changing the title. One difficulty is that there are enormous differences between the degree of belief and sourcing for various individuals. In Judaism, for example, Elijah is specifically mentioned in the Bible, while other figures are mentioned only in relatively minor Midrashic sources. Simply listing them creates an appearance of commonality of belief and importance which simply doesn't exist in the underlying religious traditions. A more fundamental problem is that the whole topic, as it stands, represents WP:OR -- it claimss a commonality among figures who have different stories. for example it presents them as going to a common, a place called "Heaven", which is impliedly represented as being common to every religion listed, even though not every religion listed has this concept. I'm not sure that changing the name would solve the problem. I'm not questioning that this could be a valid topic. It's the business of original researchers to identify common themes in disparate cultures and to provide explanations why regarding the themes as common is legitimate. But I don't believe it's the business of Wikipedia to do this sort of original research. And it's even less the business of Wikipedia to do it in a way that treats commonality as a hidden assumption which the reader is required to take for granted. The article should at least address the question of whether other religions actually have a comparable concept of "heaven" rather than fitting them into the framework of ones own worldview unquestioningly. --Shirahadasha 01:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've posted requests for editors to look at this article and deletion discussion at WikiProject talk pages for Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and, I think, Religion hoping to get some useable insight of this general sort. But I have to respond that absolutely none of Shirahadasha's points show any reason at all to delete, only to further improve the Judaism section of the article (there's already a notice at the top of that section calling for improvements). There is a Wikipedia article, Heaven, which is linked to in the top paragraph of this article and where the Jewish concepts of the afterlife are discussed, and it would be proper to note some differences in the concept of heaven or note the absence of the belief in heaven in Judaism, if that's the case. Of course, that explanation would have to address the citations from Genesis and 2 Kings already in the article. I'm going to copy and cross post S's valuable comment above to the article's talk page and respond to other points about article content, which don't need to be addressed further here.Noroton 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under a bit of time pressure so I'll just drop a quick note. Noroton, can you discuss the pros and cons of just merging this article into Heaven? Does it really merit a separate article? --Richard 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think the only reason to separate one article from another related article is to keep article sizes manageable and help readers navigate. If this article and Heaven were smallish and couldn't be expected to grow more, then I think we could merge them. Heaven is 47 Kb long right now and, although I haven't looked closely at that article, I can easily imagine it could grow more (there's a lot of information out there). After Googling this subject, here are the areas where I know or have reason to suspect this article might grow: The entire Judaism section, which should show the significant viewpoints on ascension within Judaism, including, I assume, something on midrash; Christian views on Enoch and Elijah's ascensions; more information on Roman Catholic views, Orthodox Christian views and various Protestant views and how they differ and are alike each other; Islam's significant views on Enoch and Elijah; an adequate explanation on Islam's views on Jesus and ascension; the same for Muhammad; ascension in Polynesian religion; more information on Apollonius of Tyrana and ascension; possible ascension of Chinese emperors (I get intriguing whisps of this but can't find anything that really confirms it). All of these sections should eventually show similarities and differences. Ideally, every major part of this article would summarize better, fuller accounts in other, more specific articles, as well as discuss what reliable sources have to say about the similarities and differences of different religions and sects (this would be the best spot for that information and I'm frustrated that I haven't found it yet). This article is about ascension and belief, but it's not hard to imagine ascension in myth and ascension in fiction.Noroton 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My only problem with this article is that it is an articlespace orphan. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:V and <sarcastic comment> WP:BLP </sarcastic comment>. Carlossuarez46 03:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this case, verifiability is not a question of whether heaven exists or of whether people go to it while still alive: this is a question of truth, and if this were the case, we'd have no articles on religion at all. Here, verifiability refers to confirming that these individuals were said to have ascended. -- Black Falcon 03:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to an article Shirahadasha, your discussion above is interesting, so why don't you make this an article instead. It needs too much explanation to just be a list.DGG 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It is already pretty much an article now. We just have to change the title to reflect the fact that is an article. We have to wait for the AFD close before we can move the article and so we're debating the new title now on the Talk page

  --Richard 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename. It is a philosophically interesting topic which I am sure plenty has been written about, but the current wording of the title is quite awkward. --Merovingian ※ Talk 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to a better title, since the current title seems to assume the truth of the included religious claims and therefore violates WP:NPOV. The article itself is not bad, and has some reliable sources. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom and (speaking only of the Christian elements) as incoherent, inaccurate and un-sourced theological illiteracy - eg the total confusion of the topics of ascension and assumption - ie the attempts ot improve it have not helped, rather the reverse. Shirahadasha makes very valid points above. Unsalvageable. Springnuts 14:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be and have been totally rewritten. What you need to justify a vote for deletion is a case that there shouldn't be any article on the general topic, under any title, EVER. I say that because 1) there is an ongoing discussion on changing the title 2) the notability is hardly going to change and 3) if this article is deleted any future article on the topic will be liable to get speedied. A.J.A. 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springnuts, your comments are essentially incomprehensible because you offer no explanation for them and your citations are indecipherable. Give the specific reasons and citations your strong opinion actually demands. I'll be specific: (a) what precisely is inaccurate (a serious charge in an encyclopedia); (b) where is the confusion between ascension and assumption; (c) what is incoherent. If you're going to criticize the efforts of editors who are doing their best, then it seems to me that [self edit to delete my comment. See Apologies comment below]. You might even practice a bit of your calling by helping to edit the article, but you're the best judge of where your time and effort is most needed.Noroton 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Well Noroton, not to waste a lot of time - (a) inaccuracy: the article lists Jesus as someone who entered heaven without dying, however it is a fundamental Christian belief that Jesus died on the cross. The article states "in Christian belief, the privilege of entering heaven without dying is reserved for those who are considered to have been without sin" - but most Christians do not consider Elijah sinless, yet he did enter heaven without dying ... the article states "Belief in the ascension of Christ is part of the Reformed churches tradition" but it is actually part of all orthodox tradition (b) ascension is after death (ie with dying), assumption is before death (ie without dying), (c) hence the whole thing is, imo, incoherent - and un-necessary. (self edit - remove now unnecessary comment). Springnuts 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double-ouch! Those are valid points and I wrote one of the offending sentences so I cry "Uncle!", "mea culpa" and whatever else is appropriate. We should address the issues raised by Springnuts. However, those are just arguments that the article could be improved not that it should be deleted. As stated above, one argument for deleting an article is that there should not be an article on this topic because the topic is inherently unencyclopedic. A somewhat different line of argument would assert that the topic is encyclopedic but this particular revision is so hopelessly flawed that it would be better to throw it out and rewrite it than to attempt to save it. I don't think either of these arguments is applicable here. --Richard 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: I'm sorry. My comment was inappropriate, so I've deleted it. When I wrote it I told myself I was writing criticism, but the plain meaning of the words amounted to a personal attack. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I'm copying some of your comments onto the article's talk page (and responding to some points there), and they'll help us improve the article. I agree with Richard's comments just above and leave it to Richard to change what he wrote. Noroton 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So remove the part about Jesus and the part about sinlessness and say "Christian" instead of "Reformed". None of this shows that no encyclopedic article on the topic could ever be written, just that one doesn't exist right now. A.J.A. 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I acknowledge the article needs work, and there are inherent problems in trying to lump a variety of different theological concepts under the word "heaven". However, I also believe that the subject is sufficiently notable and well sourced for inclusion. It will need a lot of work though. John Carter 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs to be renamed, and needs a lot of work, but the basis of the article is sound. The reference I just added treats the subject more fully than we've seen so far. -- BPMullins | Talk 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a perfectly valid topic for a list. - Nunh-huh 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As the existence of heaven cannot be proven, by definition, nor can the contents of the article in question. HalfShadow 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard is not whether we can prove that these people actually entered heaven, but rather whether we can prove that religious texts have claimed they entered heaven. Your argument would essentially condemn any article on a religious topic. Verifiability, not truth is the standard. -- Black Falcon 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so fast, Black Falcon, maybe we could use this argument in Pokemon deletions ... Noroton 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything while I read that. I have a hard time really sympathising with your desire; of the hundreds of times I've clicked on the "Random article" link, I think I've only encountered 1 or 2 Pokemon-related articles. -- Black Falcon 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While this is a notable subject, and it itself could definitely be attributed and written into a good and maintainable article, it shouldn't just be a stand-alone list. The subject as a whole has another name which I don't remember at the moment, (looked it up, the word is Translation) but if someone can then they should feel free to write it. --tjstrf talk 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Translation (Mormonism), which in turn is then renamed and expanded to include the beliefs of other religions as well. Silly me, not reading the full text of the debate first, if I had it would have saved me the trouble of digging out my copy of Prophets and Kings to look up what it was called there. --tjstrf talk 05:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename. It is an interesting and notable topic — and certainly if the person standing next to you was so "taken up", you'd be "sore amazed". The title is misleading since it's really an article and not a list, per se. It should drop the pretense to being a "list" and be expanded as the article it already is. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep but rename - This is not a joke as claimed by a self-proclaimed atheist, but a seriously held subject in the three great monotheistic religions. However 'List of' should be dropped from the title. Since it is combining various different kinds of entry into heaven (Translation, ascension, and assumption), perhaps St Paul should also ne mentioned, as he claimed to have been taken up into heaven temporarily, though he did not know if it was in the body or out of it. Some one claimed the reference to Enoch is a minor literary reference - that is true but much has been written and preached about it. The article Translation (Mormon) has nothing to do with this, and I would oppose any merge with that. Peterkingiron 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for the reasons set out in detail over several posts in the article's talk page. To summarize briefly:

1. Mary did not go to heaven alive, her body was assumed after her death.
2. Jesus was not a 'person,' an ordinary mortal as is meant by all other persons in this list, and experienced death prior to ascension.
3. Elijah's status, although superficially qualifying, is subject to different interpretations as laid out in the WP articles, Elijah, and Bosom of Abraham.
4. Translation (Mormonism) was added to the article, but this doctrine does not, as far as I can find, say anything about 'going to heaven.'
5. Enoch and Sirach, problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is the ambiguity of Judaism on the topic of heaven in general and these personage's fate in particular.
6. Appolonius of Tyana, not a part of Abrahamic tradition, thus use of the word 'heaven' really cannot be accepted.

What we have is a list of disparate persons arriving at arguably different 'destinations' by various means. Assumption, ascension, translation, no commonly accepted terms or processes. I supported this nomination and have spent much time looking into the persons and processes and have to say that all are covered in specific detail in the relevant articles, a list of this type would have to say something like...'List of people/dieties who went somewhere either before or after dying.' I just can't see any way to tie it together in one article. Please, no replies to specific points here. Take it to the article's talk page. killing sparrows 01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although we should almost keep it for the comedy value. Encyclopaedia Britannica eat your heart out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Even though it might seem minor, it is a notable theological concept. The article needs some rewriting and clean up but there is no reason for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum 10:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Category: People who went to heaven alive. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't since a CfD would likely have a consensus for a list. With a list you can add the date they went, the source, their religion and other information. Placing these in a category would not add those characteristics. Vegaswikian 19:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename and make into article, needs much work so that it doesn't stray into original research. As several have noted, it's a theme prevalent in several religions. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, but renaming and improvement are needed. This is a very important concept for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and it consequentially merits an article on Wikipedia. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (removed own edit to article talk page) Springnuts 08:36, 3 April 2007 (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.