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 keep. John254 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of life

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

After years of trying, it simply doesn't seem possible to provide an article based on reliable sources that complies with WP:NPOV on so vast a topic. The article began before our policies on sourcing took their current shape. It has long consisted of a series of claims that scientists, humanists, theists, etc. think a certain way, generally sourced to at most one opinion-maker. It doesn't seem possible to construct an article that is more than an original research synthesis. The variety of opinion on the subject appears simply to be too vast. If I am wrong I could not be more pleased. Shirahadasha (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The proposal is under the WP:Deletion policy item, "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". There's no claim here that the topic is non-notable. The basis of deletion is in some respects the opposite of non-notability. It is that there are so many aspects and points of view a neutral exposition of so large a topic may not be possible. WP:NPOV requires weighting, and if the number of sources/points of view were infinite weighting and other aspects of policy compliance would be impossible -- this article seems to approach that problem. Most of the content has in practice been original research synthesis. Some commenters have suggested splitting the article. Smaller topics might be more manageable. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I don't think splitting the article would be a good solution, since if there is one clear and unified meaning of life, then everyone's approach will either be the same or wrong. However, I do think this article needs to focus more on the treatment of the issue by different groups organized historically. The current structure of the article make it a battle to be the first group to present their view to the reader, which is unfair and POV; the order in which people actually said things is a little more neutral. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: This is a tough one. Clearly a notable subject, that is worthy of an encyclopedic article. This article, however, has a number of problems relating to POV and OR, and it is an article that really should have an infinite number of sources...I'll have to think about this one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve I'm not even sure what topic could have more notability. I have a great deal of interest in the subject, and I would consider taking on this article as a personal improvement project. It is certainly a citation nightmare, but I think it can be saved; consider it a therapy of sorts. Edit I think the biggest problem is that it just needs to be about a third as long. I like my philosophy and all, but everyone needs to go off and find the meaning of life for themselves, and this article should act like one big sign post. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep very important topic. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix- It has OR issues but a decent article with good sourcing could be mustered out of it. MrMurph101 (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split into four linked articles: "Mol (philosophy)", "Mol (science)", "Mol (religion)", "Mol (whatever you call common culture material)". I think that this would reduce the POV material, or at least allow it to be more easily contained, because it would encourage more topic directed contributions, and make it easier to know what to delete as inappropriate. It might also reduce the vandalism a bit, for the same reason. I hate editing the existing article. I would edit a "Mol (philosophy)" one. If there is insuffient support for splitting the article up, I have to vote keep. The nominator has my sympathy, however, I know that there is a lot of very good material on the topic by philosophers of various kinds. AfD is not clean-up, or some such catch cry. Anarchia (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs POV fixes and better citations but definitely a notable topic. AfD is not a substitution for ((npov)), ((cleanup)), etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definatelt notable, and important to philosophy.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important philosophical article. Any WP:NPOV issues need to be fixed and cannot be a reason for deletion, since the topic is very much notable -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs massive cleanup but it is not beyond rescue. Restarting from scratch might be too drastic.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is a popular concept and it is clearly a significant subject. The page should probably show the source of the idea and use a lot less listYVNP 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, with regrets. The subject is memorable but the article is a wreck. It reads more like a list than a coherent, encyclopedic article. Majoreditor 18:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, as per most of the above comments. Lugnuts 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably the most notable concept on the entire encyclopedia Will ^(talk) 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Every encyclopedia topic isn't so easy to pigeon-hole into the NPOV, fully-cited paradigm. The subject matter almost necessitates that anything written will be a POV. Should the article be restricted to fully-cited POVs of professional philosophers and theologians? It does not do badly in this respect, although I am not sure that those "authorities" are the last word on the matter. Despite the enormous challenges, I think the article should not be abandoned or the subject matter ignored by Wikipedia. --Ben Best 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An article on the "meaning of life" is, by necessity, going to contain some strong POV issues. The key here is to demand that all documented claims be verifiably attributed to those who have allegedly made them. For example, are the opinions of Dawkins and Russell accurately depicted in the article? If so, citations should be added. If citations cannot be found to support those claims, the offending sections should be deleted outright. It's going to take A LOT of effort and diplomacy, but this article has the potential to be decent. Regards, AlphaEta 03:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move on, dude. Bearian'sBooties 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and for the important uncited claims, try to find good citations. You can also try to find some book sources by searching google: http://books.google.com, remember to check if the books have been published in real life, not only on the internet (books only published on the internet are generally not accepted as sources). For example this may be a good source for some statements in the article. 84.194.232.95 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this article has some issues which are not easily fixed, but it's just too important a topic to not have an article on. Stubbification might be something to consider, but I think a somewhat aggressive cleanup would do the trick. I'll try to work on it as time permits. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:03, 3 December 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.