Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathways of Light 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)  22:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathways of Light center

Reason the page should be deleted:

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:NOR - This article attempts to establish that an Pathways of Light center is reputible and notable based upon the existence of one relatively unknown web-site, 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 link.

and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 15:06, 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," above, 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 15:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP, non-notable religious community/church. Tevildo 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not overly notable single religious center. No real sources, not many Google hits for article title. Wickethewok 17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability established. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad for non-notable organization. JChap 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk 22:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikthewok. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikthewok. --DaveG12345 05:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikthewok/Tevildo. -- GWO
• Delete although I'm not sure I can add more to the above discussion. This is a clear-cut case. Pascal.Tesson 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't care what Ste4k has done, this falls below my personal inclusion threshold for the reasons stated above. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 28 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.