Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PL Kyodan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PL Kyodan

PL Kyodan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is also Copyright Breaches from other websites such as http://web.perfect-liberty.or.jp/history.html and http://web.perfect-liberty.or.jp/21-prec.html

-- Per Angusta, 03:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but they have an entry on Encyclopaedia Britannica [1]. This would seem to be a user misconduct issue rather than an AfD issue, though I'm leaning towards deletion so that neutral editors can start it from scratch. cab 03:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G3 (vandal) per the nom. If he's doing it like this, as far as I'm concerned, it's vandalism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Vote retracted, I abstain. This is out of my realm and I need to chill. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The articles on other language Wikipedias are a problem for those Wikipedias to deal with as they see fit. For us, the problem with this article is a matter of cleanup, not deletion, given that even a cursory search for sources finds that this religion is widely documented. ISBN 0684188635, for example, documents its "special affection for golf courses". (Administrators might want to look at Special:Undelete/Perfect Liberty at this point.) The Religious Empire: The Growth and Danger of Tax-exempt Property in the United States discusses the church on pages 191–192. ISBN 1873410808 gives some statistics on page 197. Indeed, much of the "History" section of this article is verifiable as-is from page 202 of ISBN 0700716173. Keep. Uncle G 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This is a religion or at least a branch of a religion. It has an article in Encyclopedia Britannica. The alleged spammer did not create this article, so revert the article to a non-copyright-violating version and then deal with this article through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but revert to a non-copyvio prior version, and deal with the interwiki vandal administratively. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit it. I don't understand why this was brought to AfD at all. Nick mallory 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why has Makoto5 not even gotten a message on his talk page? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Xe has on some of the projects where it is relevant, such as cy:Sgwrs Defnyddiwr:Makoto5. But here all that xe did was help to write an article that looked like this. That's a verifiable article on a notable subject written in English on the English Wikipedia. The editor who violated copyright (which I have just reverted back past) was Koppany (talk · contribs). Uncle G 10:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Google scholar has 33 hit for peer reviewed journal entries on this subject. Also if people believe in some religion then that itself makes it notable. Heliumballoon 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I apologize if my addings were considered a copyright violation. I cited some phrases from the Perfect Liberty site, but I think it was not a copyvio. The article itself is about a religion that really exists, having millions of followers and might be interesting for many. The article should be deleted only in Wikis where its langauge is not appropriate, for example Chechen, but the others should be kept and considered as a stub. PL Kyodan articles are not commercial spam at all. --Koppany 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentActually Per Angusta is wrong about it being deleted at the norwegian wiki, it still exists though it is listed for deletion by an anon, my guess is it might be the same person who masslisted it for deletion on all wikis. AndersL 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to Book Norse (Norsk Bokmal). -- Per Angusta, 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I know that, doesnt make it more correct though.--AndersL 03:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I found several Wikipedias such as Alemanic, Bavarian, Icelandic, Ripuarian, and some more, where the article exists but is a mere babble, resp. in some foreign language. They're almost all listed for deletion, or a rewrite. Mostes are likely to be deleted soon, even if a local wiki user, Koppany, occashionally removed "delete" templates. --88.76.195.94 10:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Important, widely known modern religion in Japan, operates schools including frequent high-school baseball competitor PL Gakuen Fg2 11:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I simply don't understand what Per Angusta wants. I checked his/her edits and it seems to me she/he created a wiki account with the only purpose of delete this article. Very strange behavior indeed. If User Makoto5 did mess in other Wikis (here did not) is up to the community and admins of the wikis in question, I guess they are intelligent enough to have a decison on their own what to do with Makoto5's edits. --Koppany 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with having an alternate account as long as it is not used for vote-stacking etc. My dominant purpose for creating this account is not for deleting this article. I find it more stranger that User:Makoto5 does not even have an account on Japanese Wikipedia. -- Per Angusta, 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The English article can be kept. However the other interwiki articles which were not written in the native language ought to be deleted. Nevertheless, User:Makoto5 should given a warning to stop him using the English article as a launch-pad for further aggressive interwiki religious-cult spamming. -- Per Angusta, 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's correct, this time I fully agree with you. --Koppany 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: looks less like an encyclopedia article, more like a leaflet that the outfit produces and distributes. Nothing is independently sourced. (Yet the outfit really does exist.) -- Hoary 14:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep please this religion is widely known and should be covered yuckfoo 01:53, 4 June 2007 (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.