Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Miracles Center

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 of the debate was Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community Miracles Center

Reason the page should be deleted:

Ste4k believes that this article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

• WP:CSD#A7 - This article appears to meet criterion for a speedy deletion: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.

• WP:CORP - This subject of this article fails to meet the criteria for companies and corporations.

Note: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service.

• WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.

• WP:NOT - Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable.

• WP:SPAM - Advertisements masquerading as articles posted on Wikipedia should be dealt with by listing them on these Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

• WP:NOR - This article attempts to establish that a Community Miracles Center is reputible and notable based upon the existence of one relatively unknown web-site listed three times, it's own, and three internally linked "See Also" pages, none of which reference this site directly and all of which create a circular reference to themselves. This violation of policy is not about the topic matter content. It doesn't matter if the topic matter is true or not.

It only matters:

1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.

2. that those sources are reliable.

It is therefore based solely on original research.

• WP:VER - This article is wholly information which is unverifiable. According to policy; facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Failing WP:CORP, the topic of this article is insufficiently reputible to be referencing itself.

• WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links, and a book in it's contents.

and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article was essentially written entirely by the founder of the center (see history and talk page) which to me is a definite no-no. Notability is dubious at best, fails WP:ORG. Pascal.Tesson 16:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable religious organization, article as it stands is an hopelessly POV advertisment. Tevildo 16:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Pretty advertisey. No real sources. Wickethewok 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious ad. JChap 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. It's not unremarkable, and significance is noted. User Ste4k appears to be on an anti-ACIM jihad, as this is one of a long list of AfDs this editor is suddenly proposing, all using an identical list of "concerns," and all from the same general topic. I have no personal interest in ACIM, other than that I assisted in arbitrating a dispute, and have since noticed Ste4k's unusual activity here. -The Editrix 15:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question Any reason not to WP:AGF here? User: Ste4k's edits could be viewed as an attempt to clean out multiple articles created by a leader of the ACIM movement, who appears to be a little confused on the purpose of Wikipedia (i.e., that it is an attempt to create a real encyclopedia and is not just a venue for people to promote their causes/organizations). Using terms like "jihad" to refer to another editor's work is not really all that productive unless you have actual evidence of some anti-ACIM bias on his part. JChap 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And might I add, the user's motivations do not change the evaluation that I or others make on this article. Pascal.Tesson 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Note:To be fair, please note for the sake of documentation, that I performed the citation research for the premise of notability and was denied access to making the factual changes to the single article at the base of all afore mentioned articles. I brought the matters to discussion with other editors about the matter and was ignored, harrassed, and otherwise denied access to justifiable edits; specifically speaking, the thesis statement of notability. I would be more than happy to discuss this or any other matter regarding that research, but please be aware that policy on Wikipedia states that any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Consensus being preferrable to ambiguous motives, it is my opinion that nominating any group of articles for the scrutiny of others to decide upon is a more civil means of challenging and removing problematic articles than otherwise. Thank you. Ste4k 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete : I think WP:VSCA covers the faults of this article nicely. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tevildo. --DaveG12345 05:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ORG, vanispamcruftisement. --Coredesat talk 08:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tevildo -- GWO
• Keep per above comments. Andrew Parodi 08:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Just to inform fellow editors: it appears that the nomination of this page by Ste4k for deletion is a “bad faith” deletion attempt. Ste4k has recently submitted deletion nominations for all of the following A Course in Miracles-related articles: ACIM church movement, Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Attitudinal healing, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Community Miracles Center, Gary Renard, Kenneth Wapnick. And in the article Authorship of A Course in Miracles, Ste4k will not accept ANY websites as “verifiable” websites with regard to ACIM, including http://www.acim.org/ and http://www.facim.org/, both of which are the official websites of California-based non-profit organizations. This editor's deletion attempts are merely personal bias masquerading as adherence to Wikipedia policy. And it appears that this editor has a history with this kind of behavior. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother Australia series 6 -- Andrew Parodi 07:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment please assume good faith and refrain from personnal attacks. Note also that it is more than reasonnable to be skeptical of the unbiased nature of any information about ACIM that emanates from a website that is devoted to it, even though that organization itself might be non-profit. Pascal.Tesson 18:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete garden-variety spam. Just zis Guy you know? 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam, spam, spam, wonderful spam! Dr Zak 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG I think, which is only a guideline, but one we delete many other organisation articles based on. (But I do suspect that the criteria for notability in practice is lowered every year and that comparable organisations will be seen as notable enough in a year or so. But that's just my personal guess.) The current content looks spammish and promotional, though. Merge whatever isn't somewhere. Shanes 08:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spamvertisecruft. --Pjacobi 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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.