Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Wazronk, 04:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GOODFAITH||WP:NOT||WP:V||WP:N (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)