Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pillar of Fire Church

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pillar of Fire Church

here is the last stable version with references intact from before the vote for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pillar_of_Fire_Church&oldid=63154355

This article is NN and completely POV, devoid of any sources backing up the information listed. The Selected Coverage section is misleading in lable as none of the links actually pertain to the church, but to church members, and they are listed as obituaries. Shazbot85^Talk 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails to establish notability. Only gets gets only 530 Google hits, much of which is Wikipedia-derivative. Considering the many articles detailing minutiae about the Church (and all created by the same user), this feels like a spam campaign. wikipediatrix 16:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Mostly original research. Wickethewok 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Did somebody wake up on the wrong side of their God this morning? *joke* I am the author, I am not a member of this organization. If a 100 year old organization, where each leader has an obituary in the New York Times is not notable, what is? What is the cutoff? When did Google inflation start to take effect? When did 530 hits become insignificant? I also fail to see how the article violates NPOV. What agenda am I trying to promulgate? And how is the commentator deciding it is original research? What phrase or fact is derived from my own thoughts? I am not a member of the organization, and all the facts come from the website listed or the New York Times articles, or the biography of Alma White, or the Time magazine references. As I scroll through the Google list, I only see two of the first 5 pages as having Wikipedia hits. The rest are various church websites, the Time magazine archive, and the New York Times archive. What gives?

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont appreciate the joke very much. While I respect the fact that the church leaders had an obituary in the New York Times, that is perhaps basis for they themselves to have Wikipedia entries, not the church they led. The church, itself, doesn't seen notable, but I'm willing to abandon that stance in the face of consensus. Regardless of that, citation for the information present in the article needs to be presented, as it is now, it appears to be only POV or original research, nothing seems to be taken from peer-reviewed sources. -Shazbot85^Talk 21:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am not a member of this church (I'm Catholic), nor have I ever even heard of it. This church does seem to have a large sphere of influence in different areas across the United States. I think this article should be kept, but the article needs to contain more outside research if it is to be kept.Trevor 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and I'd extend that keep to all the bundled articles. I've never heard of these folks before, but I'd have to say that a multi-generational organization with "six congregations in the United States, two colleges, missions in six other countries, and three radio stations," and a history dating back almost a hundred years, meets notability criteria. That being the case, the bios on the leaders over the last century should also stay, by my reckoning. I'm no fan of churches (and missionary organizations in particular), but nonetheless this strikes me as a well-established social entity with international aspects, not some flash-in-the-pan storefront church. --Pagana 20:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, there are no bundled articles in this AfD. Secondly, without sources, we have no way of verifying if any of the information you use to support your vote is true or false. "The article says it, I don't question it, therefore don't delete" is not a valid AfD criteria. wikipediatrix 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment With all due respect, Wikipediatrix, you're putting words in my mouth. I never advocated for blanket acceptance of the article itself. I directly verified that the claim of radio station ownership is true; the station's websites assert Pillar of Fire Church as the owner. The NYT citations also come up in the archives over there, although I'm not going to pay to access the full text. As to "no bundled articles in this AfD"--well, they're a few notches back in the AfD list. --Pagana 21:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You fail to address the lack of citation in the article, which is one of my motives for bringing this up. This fact still remains, regardless of consensus on notability, which I'm willing to conceed to. -Shazbot85^Talk 21:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want a citation, add the proper "fact" template to the fact you are disputing, then I will provide a citation. You can't be disputing every line in the article. Add the "fact" template to any of the facts you disagree with. If people added a citation for every fact, every line of every entry in Wikipedia would have to have a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am, in fact, disputing every little line in the article. Is it neccessary to go through every sentence and cite a source for the information? No. What is neccessary is for sources to be added so that the information provided can be verified as fact. As it stands now, this entire article is either POV, or original research, due to the non-existance of citation. It is neccessity that articles have their sources revealed so that original research and POV don't leak into articles, surely you have to realize and agree on this. -Shazbot85^Talk 21:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you add the proper template to each fact you dispute, I will source the facts from the references provided. (repeated as per above).

I repeat, I dispute the entire article as none of it is sourced or verifiable. -Shazbot85^Talk 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, unless it's a faux church of just someone spouting off. I would remove both the Christianity infobox as well as the statement of faith, and effectively stubbify the article.-Kmaguir1 21:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If by spouting off, you mean purporting original research, then yes, as it stands now, with the lack of citation, this is "spouting off".-Shazbot85^Talk 21:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is, is it true? Are there six churches, and two colleges? Can evidence be found for this?-Kmaguir1 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know,\ that's why I've requested the article be properly sourced.-Shazbot85^Talk 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Alma Heights Christian Academy reports nowhere in it's current affiliations, or in it's history page having ever been affiliated with Pillar of Fire Church. Shazbot85^Talk 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not an insult and should not be taken as one: If you can't find the reference you really should take basic lessons in using Google. When I google "Pillar of Fire" and "Alma Heights" together, I get the following from the very website you looked at: http://www.almaheights.org/about/ministry.htm#pillar. Its the very first reference that Google gives. So, after all your talk about not a single reference in the entire article being believable, this was the only thing you could come up with?, and thats why you wanted to delete the article? I think this could have been handled with one "fact" tag at that specific fact.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Don't put words into my mouth. This is merely one, and you didn't even dispute the fact that I found Pilar of Fire Church nowhere in the school's website in the information or history section. The school never makes the claim of affiliation with the church. Also, you still havn't provided references, you've smply provided external links. You give the article more credit than it deserves when you claim that it does have references. It doesn't, and none have been incuded which makes a firm case for the entire article being POV and original research. Without sources, it's just original research and this isn't the place to publish your research. Shazbot85^Talk 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't put words into your mouth, you will have to remove your foot from that orifice first. * "I kid, I kid" * I do give your credit for reading two paragraphs from their website, but research is more than scanning a paragraph or two and then calling it quits and watching TV. External links are references, If you dont put in any external links, a bot will flag the article as being devoid of references. I will repeat this now for the third time: Flag any fact you see that you believe is not verifiable, or you think it came from my imagination. Use the "fact" tag. You must have read the whole article and searched already since the one you thought was BS was close to the bottom. I think at this point you are just arguing to save face. Please write specifics and not generalities. Find another fact you believe is wrong.

You wrote: "The school never makes the claim of affiliation with the church". If you are still disputing the relationship, here is the text from the website that you say does not contain any mention of affiliation:

Our school partners with a local church, Coastside Community Church. We are a dual ministry -- a church and a school -- with collaborative leadership, complimentary functions, and shared facilities. Our vision is for harmonious growth of church and school with each ministry strengthening and helping the other. Our school and church belong to a group of national and international ministries founded and directed by the Pillar of Fire, International. The Pillar of Fire provides us with oversight, advice, and material support, and gives us opportunities to participate in congregational, educational, media, and missions ministries around the world. The Pillar of Fire is an evangelical Christian organization that emphasizes personal faith in Jesus Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit that results in lives devoted to Christian purity and service. The name for the organization is based in the biblical account of God leading his people with a pillar of cloud during the day and a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13:21-22). We believe that God continues to lead His people through all life's circumstances. The Pillar of Fire is headquartered in Zarephath, New Jersey. It has six congregations in the United States, five Christian schools, an accredited Christian college, three radio stations, various publications, and missions/partner ministries overseas in England, India, Malawi, Liberia, Nigeria, and Costa Rica.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

External links are NOT references. They are external links, nothing more. wikipediatrix 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that one relationship to an external link. That is still not a source of the information on the page. I suggest you stop dodging sourcing what you have erected because as of now, it violates the WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Neutral Point of View policies. You must source the information and you havn't. All you have provided is external links to schools or organizations that affiliate with the church, but nothing backing up what you've posted about the church itself. Again, I contest the whole article, all "facts" that you have erected, and charge you to source it, which you have avoided doing to this point. If you can't provide the sources, then you prove that it's original research, and the article needs to come down. Shazbot85^Talk 02:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually a vote for deletion determines whether the article stays or goes, not whether it uses external links, or in line references. I think at this point you are just vandalising the article and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I understand from your page you have a stong Calvinistic background, but why are you trying to delete information on rival religions. Isn't religion supposed to be about tolerance, and all those good things?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Since when did Christianity and Calvinism break apart from each other? Are you insinuating that Calvinists are not Christians or Armenianist aren't Christians? What you mean to attack is two differeing views of biblical interpretation and theology, not differing religions. Again, I take mild offense to your insinuations about my motives. The fact that I engage in a different brand of theology than the Pillar of Fire Church has nothing to do with the fact that this article lacks citation. Again, I urge you to provide sources and stop derailing. Shazbot85^Talk 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic at hand and work to provide sources. Don't try and de-rail this discussion or try and avert attention away from this unsourced article by providing your opinion pertaining to my character. I consider that mildly insulting but will take it in good faith and again reiterate that what is provided remains unsourced. Also, you are incorrect in your assumption that a "vote for deletion" decides whether a page stays or goes. A neutral moderator will weigh the evidence and ultimately make the descision. If you can't provide the sources, and by now I'm assuming you can't through your use of diversionary tactics, I suggest you simply take the article down until some sources can be added. If they can't, then there doesn't need to be an article. Shazbot85^Talk 03:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not attacking you personally. I just think this has become a religious issue for you and not an editing issue. By removing the template for christianity from the article, you, or your friend, are giving me the impression that this particular flavor of religion doesn't fit into your mind as what you think christianity is, hence your hard work to have it deleted from Wikipedia. People don't burn books or witches anymore, the delete ideas they don't like.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

But you are attacking me personally, especially with that last comment. Your own presuppositions about people who ascribe to differing brands of theology are derailing this discussion and I don't appreciate it. I have not removed a single thing from the actual article page, nor has anyone else at my behest. I suggest you stop baselessly accusing me and stick to the topic at hand. I've been as patient with you as I can be, in spite of the fact you continually attempt to derail, please stick to this topic and stop trying to defend the article by attacking me. The fact of this matter is your article cites nothing for its' information and that's unacceptable. Please repair this, as I've requested numorous times. Shazbot85^Talk 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition See User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for further discussion.Shazbot85^Talk 04:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: An organization with the breadth, scope and history of the Pillar of Fire Church is exactly what belongs on Wikipedia. I am baffled as to what about the article makes it either non-notable or POV. Alansohn 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is entirely comprised of original research and lacks sources. Shazbot85^Talk 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the unnecessary section entitled simply "Bible", which was filled with long Biblical quotes. Alansohn's addition of a loooooong list of (unclickable) NYT articles is fascinating, but didn't anyone else write about this church? You know, like major media sources we can click on and see for ourselves? And are these mysterious NYT sources actual full articles, or are they mostly the one-paragraph tiny "local church interest" type of squib-filler one always finds in the Religion section of any newspaper? This church got press in the New York Times because they're a local church and thus, sometimes mentioned in the local papers, just like all the other local churches. Big deal. Had they been based out of Arkansas, North Dakota, or New Mexico, I promise you they would not have gotten NYT coverage. wikipediatrix 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I used a tool called ProQuest, which is available through my library system online and provides a fully searchable database of articles from The New York Times going back to 1851, very little of which is available in public domain internet searches. While one or two items are short mentions, most are substantial articles covered in the main section of the newspaper. I encourage you to try to obtain access to these materials, which provide a fascinating look at the Church and its leaders, including involvement with the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. Given the focus of the New York Times on New York City and the world, a church in tiny Zarephath, New Jersey, 45 miles from Times Square in Midtown Manhattan, might as well be in "Arkansas, North Dakota, or New Mexico" as far as its editors were concerned. Additional items from Time magazine were added, including an obituary of Alma White that discusses the church and her work. These all seem quite notable to me, who only bumped into this because of my participation in Wikiproject: New Jersey. Given that the church was at its peak some 75 years ago, the lack of Google hits is not surprising. Alansohn 21:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI

These articles are also nominated in a separate AfD:

• • Ray Bridwell White
  • Arlene White Lawrence
  • Donald Justin Wolfram
  • Orland A. Wolfram
  • Arthur Kent White
  • Robert Barney Dallenbach

• Comment it does not seem proper to include these articles in the "Pillar of Fire Church" AfD discussion when they're already "bundled" with the AfD on Robert Barney Dallenbach (above) and when the AfD templates on these five articles takes one to to the Dallenbach discussion. Agent 86 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree they shouldn't be bundled. If you're looking to piggyback the descision for those articles in with this article, I'm completely against that, whether that descision be affirmative or otherwise. If this page cannot stand alone, with it's own citation and notability, then it should be deleted and/or merged. -Shazbot85^Talk 00:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I nominated Robert Barney Dallenbach and the other people's articles myself, deliberately leaving out Pillar of Fire Church, which was nominated later. Don't confuse or connect the two. The church itself is not part of my bundled AfD, and it's counter-productive to drag them into this AfD when I've already got them listed in a separate AfD. I've taken the liberty of rewording the language in this section header. wikipediatrix 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As verifiability is a fundamental concept of wiki. Here the organisation and the physical church become separate entities. The fact is that the church buildings exist and are considered part of historical Colorado springs. The establishment dates and ownership details of the radio stations and the schools should be easy enough to verify for an american who knows how to search commercial registers. Some of the other events, such as ordination dates, however, are probably folkloric, and thus NPOV. Nevertheless, it would not warrant deletion of the entire article, just the offending sections. Ohconfucius 06:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The article provides zero sources. Shazbot85^Talk 07:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup Article is about something on the cusp between a church and a denomination. It thus is more notable than individual church articles. Article does lack citation, but that is not evidence that verification is impossible, unless the attempt has been made. Cleanup is needed (for example, deaths of former leaders should go) and citations should be added, but with no evidence in the article history of a serious attempt to clean-up, I can't believe that the issues are unsolvable. If the issues are solvable, deletion is the wrong anser. GRBerry 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup I think the notability concern has been addressed. Meanwhile, if one wants to request sources, please see WP:CITE on two ways to do that (fact tags for specific items and a general tag for a whole section or the whole article). I see that they've both been done in the meantime anyway. Hopefully, someone will add citations now.--Anthony Krupp 20:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Alright, I've already conceeded to consensus on notability, and if that's the correct way to go about requesting citation I'll do that in the future. I assume the moderating administrator will rule in the same way as the consensus is, as my big arguement was citation and that's taken care of elsewhere. I totally conceed to public consensus in every respect now and withdraw my claims for deletion. Now, the moderating aministrrtor simply needs to make a ruling, which I assume will be to keep. Immediately following that, I will work on some citations for the article. Regards Shazbot85^Talk 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep since nom withdraws his nomination. That's the spirit! A better article is always a better result. Good for you for being willing to look up sources.--Anthony Krupp 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep But delete the associated biographies. Dr U 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now now, calm down and take it elsewhere. This page should be shut down soon as I have withdrawn my AfD claim. Shazbot85^Talk 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable denomination. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Not a well crafted article, but the debate appears conclusive. With the nomination withdrawn it is time for this AfD discussion to go away. Williamborg (Bill) 02:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Inappropriate nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - All religious denominations & many cults that have reached critical mass pass the notability test. As per nom, however, I agree that the article is "ridiculously POV". Billbrock 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I worked on the POV in theology section. Billbrock 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I apologise unreservedly for my outburst as being out of order. Ohconfucius 03:12, 4 September 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.