Talk:Far future in religion

This is barely an article

You've basically taken other people's contributions, cobbled them together, and tacked on a paragraph's worth of your own work. How far is far? Are you using the timeline's definition? What are the dates used in the religious examples you cite? Where is the discussion of human understandings of far time? Serendi^podous 07:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I understand fully the nature of your concerns. I gave proper attribution when I created this article, stating in the edit summary where the content was coming from and thereby giving credit to the other contributors. I don't own this article any more than anyone else does; all Wikipedia articles are ideally collaborations between many editors. With respect to the definition of "far", yes, I wrote with the timeline's definition in mind; Wikipedia articles should be consistent. I would be glad to see the other information that you request added to the article; please feel free to add discussions of human understandings of far time and (as you mention on my talk page) examples from other religions not yet included in the article. My purpose in creating the article was to create a parent article for Timeline of the far future and Far future in science fiction and popular culture, and to create a space for other contributions relating to the far future that don't belong on the timeline or the science fiction/popular culture articles. All articles are works in progress. Neelix (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

So, where is the progress? I do not see any edits in this pseudoarticle!

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata 08:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being deleted, but I'm not going to nominate it. I went through hell trying to get it deleted before; I won't do so again. Serendi^podous 18:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Dubious

I've tagged the following line under Religous Views as being dubious: "Many Christian authors have welcomed the scientific theory of the heat death of the universe as the ultimate fate of the universe, while atheists and materialists have commonly opposed the theory in favour of the idea that the universe and life in it will exist eternally." The latter half of the line is simply factually incorrect. Perhaps it refers to historical information, in which case it should be stated more clearly. Someone with access to the source should verify what it actually says and whether it's reliable for this topic. --Euniana/Talk 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I found the source. This line appears to be an accurate reflection of the source, although it is talking about historical information. A new sourced statement is probably necessary to indicate that the statement no longer accurately describes the status quo. --Euniana/Talk 00:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Completely made-up original synthesis (forbidden). Delete for non-notability.

A candidate for wp:speedy deletion? Certainly a candidate for deletion for notability not sufficiently being established and for being the verboten wp:or.

50.189.36.90 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Does not seem the meet the strict Speedy deletion criteria. Original research and lack of notability are distinct, but sometimes related, issues. If you think this article should be deleted (and you may have a valid case here), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion seems most appropriate. If you do not want to create an account (and learn the ropes of the complicated process), I can nominate it on your behalf (you are welcome to have your say at the deletion discussion). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right that it doesn't meet the "speedy" requirements. Given the broad-ish consensus on this page of related complaints, maybe it meets the PROD requirements. If not, AfD it is.

Yes, OR and notability are sometimes muddled. Both problems are different, while they're both solved (generally) by the same thing -- more reliable refs!  :-) Fixing the notability problem needs a sufficiently-large number of hefty-enough refs that clearly refer to the subject as "a thing". Fixing the OR problem needs those refs to be saying something substantively similar to the current (original) synthesis so the current synthesis appears at least to be a summarized from the cited works. Ideally, the refs should come first and the synthesis should be based on them instead of the other way around. But hey, "what're y' gonna do"?

The article might be fixable if refs can be found that are good enough to solve both those problems. But, it's been a tagged problem for a year and a half and no one has been able to solve it, suggesting that it really is original and really is not notable enough for inclusion -- and therefore it's deletable.

If someone want's to try to fix it, I have no problem with that -- but they better get crackin' because they're already a year and a half behind.  :-)

50.189.36.90 (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)