Deletion of Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book (2nd nomination)

Comment: add: '''or redirect'''): OK I'll chime in. Fails  (see ), , , , , and probably  (don't have proof of that last). Can you believe none of that came up in prior AFD? Look, you must pick one: either fictional universe, or minority religious view of extant universe. If you pick the first, you can ramble on but with the big headnote "fictional"; if you pick the second you avoid the headnote but you must allow vast-majority POVs such as that Adam and Eve are not from "Jerusem"-- and you must use the geographical name chosen by the vast majority of its English-speaking inhabitants: not "Urantia", but "Earth". The author of this material wants it both ways. Delete '''without prejudice''' to a ''real'' article of same name, which would run something like Flat Earth Society#Physics of a Flat Earth: "Adam and Eve: a couple claimed to have come to Earth from the alleged astronomical phenomenom 'Jerusem'  about 38,000 years ago to interbreed with existing humans and improve the species. The Torah, the Bible, and the Qur'an claim that Adam and Eve were instead the first man and woman created by God. There is no evidence of extraterrestrial life that has been widely accepted by the scientific community." (I hardly believe I took the time to write that.) Note also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glossary_of_terms_in_The_Urantia_Book&diff=199336489&oldid=32529995 how little change between its first and latest versions, mostly dabs and links-- indicating a one-time published disquisition, not an open-source minority view of the universe. You'd think those who wish us to consider the Urantia Book concepts would take advantage of the wiki by cross-linking within the article, but instead redlinks are solicited and the editors invite us to consider Urantia Adam to equal WP Adam. Folks, I'm open-minded, but obey the policies. Sorry-- and thanks Guy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SELFPUB||WP:NPOV||WP:EL||WP:COI||WP:RED||WP:C)

Comment: It is clear that |single-purpose accounts are abusing Wikipedia to make a proselytizing list of terms. Wikipedia is not a Urantia Foundation sponsored study group. There are occasions where extensive Wikipedia:Root pages can be written to great effect, but it should only be done to conform to |summary style. I do not see that this article is doing that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:SS)

Comment: a glossary isn't a dictionary.  Glossaries are widespread on wikipedia, and for those who think they shouldn't be, it's a higher level discussion and not something for an article AfD.  It certainly isn't a reason for deletion with current wikipedia policy.  This glossary in particular is to document and be a simple digest of major terminologies in the book, which is 2000+ pages long, and so has a steep barrier for the casual person coming across the topic.  Nothing more.  (I'm the wikipedia editor who put the glossary together -- I've refrained from being overly biased and voting "strong keep" :) .)  The nominator even actually has described this topic as from a "culty book", an inflammatory label that on its face speaks of bias and a lack of  approach to this.  Really, are deleting and censoring explanatory articles about such topics a furtherance of understanding or just an aggravation of that much more ignorance that leads people to label things that seem odd to them as "cult"? For those who think it's a trivial topic, #PAPER, the glossary can be here to be of use to others who would come along and make use of it even if you don't find you need it yourself, and the book ''is''  and .  As the lead sentence of the intro says, the glossary just is intended to give "short definitions of words and concepts presented in the book, especially those that are unique or defined in a way that differs from more traditional understandings. The glossary is meant to assist people unfamiliar with The Urantia Book who may come across conversations or writings having to do with the readership surrounding it. The list is also meant to be a basic reference guide for terminology a reader is likely to encounter in the book, whether it is examined only briefly or read in more detail
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:GOODFAITH||WP:NOT||WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: Nothing has really changed since the prior AfD, and Portal:Contents#Glossaries|glossaries are still acceptable content.  Moreover, the Urantia Book claims to be a religious scripture.  The validity of its proposed revelation is beside the point, but calling it "in-universe fiction" strikes me as seriously misguided, evidence of a positivism|positivist bias, and mildly |uncivil to boot
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: per Smerdis, but per Guy this needs to be hacked down and sourced... but that isn't solved by deletion.  Wikipedia allows glossaries; see .  I would agree if this were merely fiction, but the Urantia thing is apparently not merely fiction, it is recognized as a religion albeit a fringe one.  See, for instance, its inclusion in http://books.google.com/books?id=vnAk9WefhfwC&pg=PA517&dq=Urantia+%2B%22Thought+adjuster%22&sig=37WKhRung_eWXyz7gDs61Twvo8Q Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality, a published encyclopedia of religions.  I can't get behind treating a fringe religion as the same thing as a work of fiction
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)