 |
- 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 no consensus. Without prejudice toward a future Merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes[edit]
- List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of encyclopedic information missing out from what the usual "List of episodes" should have. Includes only date of telecast and episode titles and plot; all unreferenced. The plot is also written in a advertisement manner, (What will happen?!) also gives writers opinions (However, it could have been divided into two episodes.), gives trivial info (Registration number was Mum889956671566787, Stops on Kajal's face, Stops on Malini's face, Stops on Amir's face, Stops on Koel's face). Such a garbage fan-forum article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that this satisfies WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- As a list of episodes is an integral part of the topic of a TV series, the proper standards are instead WP:WHENSPLIT and (less importantly here) WP:LISTPURP#Information. So unless it is unverifiable (can that be the case for any TV series broadcast by a major cable network in India? the nom seems to think so, I don't know), it should either be merged to the series article or remain a standalone list. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Postdlf is substantially correct. The principal guidance document is WP:SAL. Our normal custom and practice with TV shows is to merge back to the main article (Dhoom Machaao Dhoom) or keep as a standalone list. Bearing in mind WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, I cannot see how it could possibly be compliant with our guidelines to turn this into a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- So you mean we should merge it back in the main article and then delete it from there as we in general don't keep anything that is unreferenced on Wikipedia? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- What makes you think we delete anything that is merely unreferenced? postdlf (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Practically we don't. But ideally we should. Shouldn't we? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- No. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The fact that something's unreferenced is certainly not an indication that it should be removed. Factual, uncontroversial material should typically be kept in some form.—S Marshall T/C 15:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- On what basis is this all factual? Is it verifiable? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'll assume you're asking about WP:V, Animeshkulkarni, rather than for a discussion about the finer points of epistemology. I've spent a great deal of time reflecting on WP:V. I was one of those involved in drafting the current text, and it was me, personally, who wrote the phrase "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it"—which I suspect is what you're alluding to.
WP:V refers to contentious material. It means anything, and I quote, "challenged or likely to be challenged". It does not mean uncontroversial statements of fact. Wikipedia policies are supposed to be applied carefully, thoughtfully and on the basis of good editorial judgment. They were never meant as a way of removing perfectly accurate, non-promotional, non-defamational, copyright-compliant material from our encyclopaedia. It is good editorial judgment to leave such material untouched and concentrate on the problematic stuff. Unfortunately WP:Editorial judgment is still a redlink, and I wonder if my next policy-related effort should not be to make that blue.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- (Oh! Founding father here!)
I understand that "uncontroversial" statements of fact do not require sources. Here the show itself is the primary source and we have to believe in good faith on whatever is written here is true. But are our standards gonna steep so low that the whole article is okay to be unsourced? Also "uncontroversial" is a relative term. Plus i don't know if we should keep such poorly written article. Ofcourse someone can rewrite it. And someone should have do it since 2009 had it been any notable at all. Not a valid point to gauge notability, i know. There can be a new user just registering who would clean this all and make it a FL if you like. But till then do we keep such articles? Maybe your editorial judgement essay should write about this. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- You still haven't advanced an argument that this episode information is unverifiable or that the series is not notable. So you're using a lot of words without saying anything relevant to the issue of deletion, with a lot of simply incorrect assertions along the way (you insisted "...as we in general don't keep anything that is unreferenced on Wikipedia", then you acknowledge "Practically we don't [delete content merely for being unreferenced]. But ideally we should." Then why did you insist in the first place that we did?). Now you say, "Of course someone can rewrite it." Then this AFD should be closed as "keep". postdlf (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- (Oh! Founding father here!)
- I'll assume you're asking about WP:V, Animeshkulkarni, rather than for a discussion about the finer points of epistemology. I've spent a great deal of time reflecting on WP:V. I was one of those involved in drafting the current text, and it was me, personally, who wrote the phrase "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it"—which I suspect is what you're alluding to.
- On what basis is this all factual? Is it verifiable? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The fact that something's unreferenced is certainly not an indication that it should be removed. Factual, uncontroversial material should typically be kept in some form.—S Marshall T/C 15:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- No. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Practically we don't. But ideally we should. Shouldn't we? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- What makes you think we delete anything that is merely unreferenced? postdlf (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- So you mean we should merge it back in the main article and then delete it from there as we in general don't keep anything that is unreferenced on Wikipedia? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I cant close the AfD now as some editors have voted for deletion. Or else i would have closed it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2012 (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.
- 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 delete. Much of the discussion has been off-topic, but two things seem clear: that the Universal Life Church World Headquarters is a different organization from the Universal Life Church, and that there is consensus that the ULCWH doesn't pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Universal life church world headquarters[edit]
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- Universal life church world headquarters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spammy article about the headquarters of the Universal Life Church, and much of the article is actually devoted to the latter. Most of the references are press releases. A redirect has been reverted. Nothing warrants an article about the headquarters that's distinct from the one on the organization as a whole: this ain't the Holy See. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The "Universal Life Church" WIKI page already has tags showing that it is both outdated as well as illustrates need for expert attention and has outdated information. It should be deleted AND The wiki Page created "Universal Life Church World Headquarters" SHOULD BE APPROVED AND its' replacement. The Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI Page is factual, with citations and current information and should be KEPT! In any event, in summation the Universal Life Church & The Universal Life Church World Headquarters are Two VERY Seperate entities. Best Case Scenario here would be to delete the Universal Life Church WIKI page as in part it is using the Incorporated and Registered Non profit name of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters and keep the Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI page. Case in Point as Well is that the WIKI page for the Universal Life Church has noone updating it and no credible, expert information Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)PastorBodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Pastorbodhi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Actually, BlanchardB, this article does not appear to be about the Universal Life Church discussed in the other article (at least, if you catch it when the editors of this article aren't trying to overwrite that page with this one), but about a totally separate organization that has a similar name (a common situation in the religious world). --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- The other Universal Life Church as the article states was founded in 1959 as LIFE CHURCH. "Universal Life" is a long standing Christian/Catholic name that has seen many Churches named such over the years beginning in 107AD when St Ignatius of Antioch first termed it, using the word katholikos from the Greek Language which means universal. The Headquarters as stated and authenticated by the IRS, the State of Florida and as cited in the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc. NO WHERE is the Universal Life Church that started as LIFE CHURCH noted by authoritative figures as Headquarters. The Secretary of State requires of organizations to use their full name of incorporation and not deviate from the name of which they incorporated under. Modesto is not Headquarters, Carrabelle is.JordanFrancis (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Actually, BlanchardB, this article does not appear to be about the Universal Life Church discussed in the other article (at least, if you catch it when the editors of this article aren't trying to overwrite that page with this one), but about a totally separate organization that has a similar name (a common situation in the religious world). --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. This version is non-notable. Another version of this article Universal Life Church World Headquarters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was speedy deleted a day or two ago. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- As Per Wikipedia Guidelines User:Me123567, "If you're involved in the deletion process, please don't limit your comment to "non-notable" or "nn". This comment has come to mean nothing more than "I want this article deleted" and/or "I think this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia", and may give the impression that you are not bothered to actually check up on it or find a proper reason for deleting the article. Tell us why you think the subject is non-notable, and what you understand by "non-notable". Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Pastorbodhi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete -- Fails notability guidelines at WP:ORG. No sign of significant third party coverage. Gnews has 4 relevant hits, all self-generated (do not confuse the Modesto Bee hit, which is about the ULC, a separate organization). Ghits is a sea of self-generated hits (mainly press releases) and databases - nothing that conveys notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- NatBertler you are incorrect, it appears they meet the guidelines at WP:ORG the Better Business Bureau of North Florida definitely meets the criteria and DMOZ meets the criteria as cited on the page http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Universal_Life_Church/ http://www.bbb.org/northwestern-florida/business-reviews/religious-organizations/universal-life-church-world-headquarters-in-carrabelle-fl-90010212 In addition look at their staff page and see redirects from a great many websites, which clearly would be considered 3rd parties. JordanFrancis (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI page has also created on its WIKI page in question here additional notable third party references inclduing the Honolulu Star Advertiser - http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=login&f=y&id=140395493 as well as an accepted Wikipedia page devoted to Lisa Williams - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Williams Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Pastorbodhi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- In addition to the above I assert that the true issue contention here is that the Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI page should be afforded the opportunity to address and, if necessary, revise any editor concerns regarding "Notability," or other content issues first as opposed to an immediate move toward deletion of a page. Should the WIKI editors look at other WIKI pages, for example the other Universal Life Church page, along with other numerous encyclopedia pages which have nothing to do with the ULC, they will note that there are correction and other revision requests but no "deletion," notes. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Pastorbodhi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- No to all the above claims. The Better Business Bureau entry is a database entry, and database entries do not indicated notability under Wikipedia guidelines. The DMOZ is both a database and publicly editable, so it fails as a reliable source and doesn't provide significant coverage anyway. WP:Wikipediaisnotareliablesource. The Star Advertiser piece appears to be about Universal Life Church, not World Headquarters. You are being afforded an opportunity to address the questions of notability - it's this discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Natgertler - You are assuming the Star Advertiser piece is about the Universal Life Church. You are incorrect. It states in the article and I quote: "(There are several variations of the name and ministries associated with “Universal Life Church.” They are not affiliated with the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, a Christian organization based in Carrabelle, FL., which upholds traditional marriage between a man and woman, according to the Rev. Daniel Chapin, national vice president and head pastor of the Aloha Church of Kapolei.)" You will note that article uses Universal Life Church throughout the article, but it is only an abbreviated form of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters. This article is huge in the fact that it clearly SEPARATES the two Churches. This validates the differences and clearly identifies Headquarters as in Carrabelle, FL. This article identifies Daniel Chapin as the vice president, if you go to the staff page of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, you will see Daniel Chapin as vice president: http://www.ulcnetwork.com/staff-2 The significance of this article again is huge, it complies with Wikipedia with respect to Notability for this page and it differentiates between the two which is in contrast to blanchardb spammy claims. Also you failed to mention Lisa Williams Wikipedia Page and how it mentions the Universal Life Church World Headquarters and specifically a date of ordination. This also complies with notability. By itself perhaps not, but in conjunction with the Star advertiser of Hawaii, clearly however minimal it may be it meets the criteria of notability. I compare edits, both you and Me-123567 have made excessive edits on the Universal Life Church page, with Me-123567 it appears to be hundreds. It appears Me-123567 has been sanctioned for prior edit wars regarding the page. Obviously there is ties with the Universal Life Church. The author of this page DID NOT put in or request a redirect of the Universal Life Church page to this page yesterday and he only requested deletion after someone requested deletion of this page. There is definitely room for two pages here. One for the Universal Life Church and one for Universal Life Church World Headquarters. In fact I believe the latter is better written and is better cited.JordanFrancis (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- A one-sentence parenthetical aside is not "significant coverage". And the fact that Lisa Williams has a Wikipedia page is irrelevant not just because notability is not inherited, but also because WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to Universal Life Church. If the previous contributors assertions are correct, it should be rename both with a dab-suffix to distinguish them, my suggested merge target becoming a dabpage -- I have to express doubt as to the alleged size of this denomination worldwide at 18 million adherents. It is conceivable that 18 million accept its doctrinal basis, but that is nothing even close to membership. I suspect that the site cited is merely recycling the church's own exaggerated claims. I would like to see something that gave a breakdown of this figure between countries to show whehter it is credible. I agree that teh article under discussion reads far too much like an advert. I have little idea whehter the HQ is notable: it appears to include a seminary, but we are given no indication of its size. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Where does the Universal Life Church claim 18 million ordained? This is not a deltion page for Universal Life Church or its talk page. This is the page for Universal Life Church World Headquarters, a completely separate entity.JordanFrancis (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You are correct in determining the size of a Congregation it is not contingent on, 18 million ordained ministers, ordination numbers do not define size of a congregation as ULC Modesto attempts to claim and adherents.com does not corroborate membership but it publishes their claim of ministers ordained. With the ULC World Headquarters you need to see who is behind it, it is setup as if it were a part of the the Holy See, an ordained Roman Catholic Bishop is its leader. The ULC World Headquarters in Carrabelle is just that the World Headquarters. It has affiliate Churches throughout the world, and it broadcasts on its live 365/24/7 radio station. It is set up nearly verbatim to the Vatican. With respect to membership, you can take the individuals who belong to affiliate and/or charter churches, you could consider social engines, you could consider the listening audience. There is many tangibles to be considered, but again ULC World HQ does not make membership claims or talks of ordaining 18 million ministers. 12:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I am the '"Expert" that the other Universal Life Church page seeks. Let me explain, you make mention of the Modesto Bee article. There was actually two Modesto Bee articles, if you read the one, Andre Hensley who is the President of Universal Life Church, Inc., of Modesto, CA. clearly states how he doesn't really want to follow in his Father's footsteps, he would just assume being local Pastor for the ULC Church in Modesto, CA. Also there is a letter floating around on the internet where Andre clearly states the ULC Seminary is just a "Known site" that it is not an authorized ULC site. He states in addition that ULC.NET a sole proprietorship led by Kevin Andrews is authorized to sell ULC items and that it is the only authorized site, other than ulchq.com This is why the ulchq.com site has not been updated for almost seven years. It is also why the Universal Life Church page cannot be updated, because Andre Hensley chooses not too. As stated in the Modesto Bee article and by Andre himself, he does not want too. Instead what is happening is that Amy Long who operates "Quest Ministries of the Universal Life Church and ULC Seminary, Inc." which can be corroborated by the Secretary of State in California, is looking to keep the Universal Life Church Wikipedia page updated and catered to her ULC Seminary, which is a fictitious name. The ulchq.com site was last updated before Lida Hensley passed in 2006. Only Andre Hensley can answer the why for his actions since, just maybe Andre Hensley has a conscience, something Kirby Hensley never had. Kirby Hensley was on his way to jail, but it was his death that prevented such and led to a million dollar fine levied by the IRS against the ULC of Modesto. The Universal Life Church page should be updated, but it won't be because the ULC in Modesto does not want too and this should be noted, as it stands right now folks are being deceived to think otherwise to enable Amy Smith Long to prosper. In the Universal Life Church World Headquarters you have an organization thriving and growing. There is notability to those without blinders who refuse to take them off because of a loyalty to a Church that is really no longer there. Kirby's Church is no longer. Again Andre has a conscience and appears to be doing what is right. Wikipedia needs to let Kirby Hensley rest in peace and to give Andre Hensley what he truly wants.11:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. Read it please. This AfD is on the merits of Universal life church world headquarters and its notability. not the other article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also, that an organization is "thriving and growing" is not a criterion for inclusion. Organizations may be dead and still meet our inclusion requirements (otherwise we'd have to ditch our article on the Roman Empire), and, likewise, they may thrive yet not be notorious enough for Wikipedia to give them coverage. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- If that was the only reason cited, no it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. However the fact Lisa Williams is ordained, the fact this Honolulu paper did publish an article and that this Church has ordained former politicians and judges, including the ordination of President William Clinton, that is clearly notability. What other Church ever on this planet ordained a former President?There is clear bias for this other ULC, several of you who do not support inclusion have a history of multiple edits on Universal Life Church page, of reverting pages or changes when someone attempts to correct it.JordanFrancis (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. Recommend speedy deletion in accordance with G11; subject lacks established notability in accordance with topical notability guidelines for organizations or the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. While the organization's title indicates that they may have a global presence, no actual reliable or independent sources are provided to support this claim. Additionally, the ordination of individuals that may live in other regions or countries is not indicative of notability based on a national or international scope of activities. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Recommend Dispute Resolution I propose Dispute Resolution for both Universal Life Church and Universal Life Church World Headquarters. Because of the competitive nature, multiple edits and reversals by some I do not believe we can reach fair resolution regarding either site without resolution.JordanFrancis (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. The only cited sources that would meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources are the newspaper article about civil unions and the story about the death of Judge Staples. But neither of those articles is about the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, and neither confirms the accuracy of the majority of the information in the article. If we remove all the information in the article that isn't in reliable sources, we are left with almost no article. User:JordanFrancis, almost nothing you've said in this discussion has been at all relevant to the question of whether this organization meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. All you need to do is provide us with the newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books that have been written about this organization. It's pretty clear that you're an active member of the organization, so if the sources exist, you're the person here most likely to know where those sources have been published. If no one else is writing in any significant way about this organization, then Wikipedia can't be the first. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Site Fisherqueen obviously didnt read the above text from the Honolulu Star Advertiser nor read the entire article on their site about the Universal Life Church as it clearly discuss the Headquarters site in question here. I propose the site, Universal Life Church World Headquarters, be kept on the WIKI page. Given that there is clearly confusion in regards to the two seperate ULC entities and given that Wikipedia's informative/encyclopedia nature, perhaps having up both pages will serve to clear reader confusion as well as provide accurate updated information. To me the Universal Life Church World Headquarters appears to be truly notable and informative. Has anyone bothered to read the Honolulu Star and its article distinguishing from the Universal Life Church World Headquarters? If a syndicated National Newspaper is not notable I do not know what is. Also, according to the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, main link as posted on their current WIKI page there are verifiable links and webpages which appear notable to many individuals and organizations which refer to the organization and its reach. See http://www.ulcnetwork.com/outreach-2as well as http://www.ulcnetwork.com/staff-2 Julieanne123 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)julieanne123Julieanne123 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Julieanne123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I was only able to read the beginning of the article, as the rest required registration. The beginning indicated that the main subject of that article was not the Universal Life Church World Headquarters. Have any articles been written anywhere that do have this organization as their main subject? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've fixed your links so they can be seen. However, neither of them seems to be a helpful source- one is a dead link; the other is the ULC Network's own web page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was only able to read the beginning of the article, as the rest required registration. The beginning indicated that the main subject of that article was not the Universal Life Church World Headquarters. Have any articles been written anywhere that do have this organization as their main subject? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- UNABLE TO DELETE
I do not know how I can be misinterpreting this incorrectly, wherefore I say this pretty much puts asunder any talk of deletion of this article.
WP:INHERITED - "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed.'"
WP:NRVE - "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, the wording "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed" do not appear in WP:INHERITED. I have checked every version of the page since April, and it did not appear in any of them.
- Regarding Delete Requests. Secondly, even if those words did appear, or some other words that you are paraphrasing, you seem not to have realised that WP:INHERITED is a section of a page entitled "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" (my emphasis). JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses newspapers, magazines only as examples, independent verification is not limited to such venues. Please keep this in mind. Wikipedia itself considers Lisa Williams to be famous and unique to allow her a page within Wikipedia. Lisa Williams appears on this Churches worldwide radio network, national TV and has public speaking engagements throughout the world. Actor Max Ryan is also a minister. William Clinton became an ordained Minister. These Ministers are all well documented. Danny Bonaduce has indicated on Facebook and on his radio show how he is an ordained Minister with the ULC World Headquarters.JordanFrancis (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- These are all acceptable notable 3rd parties.
Whats On TV in the United Kingdom? Worldwide - UK Publication (Independent 3rd Party Review)
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/video/youtube/search/ulcnetwork
Lisa Williams https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150808013565588
JordanFrancis (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Furthermore it appears that Walmart and the Universal Life Church World Headquarters has an affiliate agreement providing home shopping for Shutins. http://www.ulcnetwork.com/apps/blog/show/11825124-universal-life-church-walmart-we-offer-free-shopping-for-shutins
This maybe a blog, yet the largest retailer in the world has a written agreement with this Church on file. Obviously Walmart would add 3rd party notability.
Also this Church with Dr Jerry Epperson in Seoul, and as a Chaplain the US Armed Services as indicated on the website offers 3rd party notability. http://ulcnetwork.socialgo.com/members/profile/418JordanFrancis (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Spritual Networks
It is understandable how posts would not be deemed notable, however with that said, the followers of these pages are calculated by third party from clicks by people who choose to follow the organization.
On Facebook Over 20,000 followers - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Universal-Life-Church/147869338562220 No other Universal Life Church comes close.
Nearly 10,000 followers on Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/ulcnetwork
Over 3,000 followers on Google +, nearly 1000 on Spiritual Networks, 2,000+ on Shoutlife.
This clearly shows just how huge a following they have. On their ULC Radio Network they average 10,000+ listeners a month.JordanFrancis (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
We have added the below references so as to address some of the editors concerns regarding 3rd party reference including to the [Make A Wish Foundation] recognition of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters further establishing notability and International Influence [1] We have also included the [Walmart] Corporation [2]. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also added Church Vice President, Daniel B Chapin and the Church plant of another outreach ministry in Hawaii through Public Television Additionally, the Universal Life Church Church World Headquarters, Vice President, Pastor Daniel B Chapin claims activity in establishing ministries across the nation including the Aloha Church In Hawaii and holds weekly public television broadcasts from the islands there through "Olelo Television Network.[3]
Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're stretching it, We don't evaluate notability by counting tweets. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps not BlanchardB, however there is a good deal of other items added for evaluation. Simply because tweets does not meet the guidelines, the others do. Again I bring up..... as you have no answer. AN ARTICLE IS NOT SUBJECT TO DELETION IF FAMOUS PEOPLE ARE LISTED.
WP:INHERITED - "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed.'"
WP:NRVE - "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate
The Olelo Telivision Network, with Lisa Williams and the ULC World HQ is now mentioned on their Wikipedia page as well as Lisa Williams. Listed are famous people in addition including an ex president, a Hollywood actor and others. Added is a UK TV Network Publication who lists videos.JordanFrancis (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- You should go back and re-read, more closely, the pages on which WP:INHERITED and WP:NRVE appear, and also WP:ORG, which is the basic notability criteria. You have seriously misunderstood those guidelines. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- DELETE
Preface: ULCHQ is a fraudulent and misleading organization. Allowing a Wikipedia Page on ULCHQ would hurt the overall credibility of Wikipedia. The fact that their name includes ULC (Universal Life Church) is misleading because they don’t share any of the same fundamental ULC beliefs, notably religious freedom. They are a Christian based organization tarnishing the ULC doctrine and its ministers through religious exclusion and bigotry. The inclusion into Wikipedia would hurt all ministers ordained through the original ULC (Modesto) as well as other legitimate ULC’s. I know that this could be look at as an opinion and since Wikipedia is all about NPOV and reliable sources I will cite actual reasons for deletion.
Reasons for Speedy Deletion
G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Clearly there is a lack of reliable third party sources for ULCHQ to cite. Therefore, they must augment and try to fool Wikipedia through linking to their own site for reliability. This page is exclusively promotional and doesn’t present any NPOV content. Wikipedia is entirely being used as a promotional tool for ULCHQ.
A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). There is nothing of any significance presented in the article that will help Wikipedia readers gain clarity on what the ULCHQ does. Much of the content is misleading. For example, “The Universal Life Church World Headquarters claims to believe in and Support the Christian Doctrine of Faith Stating The Following Beliefs” section. These are all just Christian doctrines nothing new or notable. Nothing that indicates importance.
Also the “Vocations” section says: “The Universal Life Church World Headquarters is unique in the sense that it is perhaps the only Church in the world with both an online and offline presence that offers ordination, following an individual's baptism, as a Non-denominational Faith Based Minister and/or Holy Orders as an Independent Catholic Priest with succession and lineage to Jesus Chris”
Then cites itself. No reliable source on uniqueness, just a wild assumption.
The ULCHQ page as I see it violates all the core content policies. There is no NPOV. No Verifiability and no Original Research.
Please delete this page and continue the Wikipedia precedence of balanced and impartial pages. DavidOff1234 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously the last post is biased toward the other ULC in Modesto and personal opinion does not warrant a page deletion on Wikepedia. The Editors of the ULCHQ page have obviously added even in the last few days reliable sources to theior unique work as an organizationother than their own website and show their importance. 173.22.26.53 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)jillc173.22.26.53 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the promotional aspect, this is a fine line at times which I think we all understand. This is not the forum for personal opinions but constructive focus. I think the information provided is simply factual evidence which can, yes be seen by some as promotional. But clearly much of the information provided is verifiable and even increasingly so the last few days with 3rd party sources (see above links). Additionally the goal of this forum as outlined by Wikepedia is to offer aide to keep a page not simply randomly deleate a page due to disagreement with doctrine, tenets, etc.... And the information provided on the page as I see it is offering additionally information on an organizations service and service reach while differentiating an important difference structural between two ULC entities. The oabove user David opts for a "Speedy Deletion," but the editors previously noted it worthy of discussion - Not speedy deletion as it does not meet the criteria for such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.26.53 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. So far in this discussion, I have seen it claimed twice that WP:INHERITED says that "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed." But I can't find that quote anywhere in WP:INHERITED. I would also question why it has been claimed that Bill Clinton was ordained as a minister in this church, because that is not mentioned in this article, nor have I seen it mentioned in any reliable independent sources yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Metropolitan90 That quote is there, keep reading.
Regarding Bill Clinton, obviously you are showing your connection to the ULC Modesto, just because the ULC Modesto uses celebrity ordinations on Wikipedia, this does not justify or require other ULC's to do so. Wikipedia is not designed for promotional purposes. For this page to be deleted a consensus must be reached, not a consensus by numbers, but a consensus of all contributors. I can't speak for the author, but it appears to me he or she is looking to appease Wikipedia policy concerning promotion. Using celebrities is a promotional tool, if documentation becomes necessary, I'm sure such can be provided.
What I see here on this is a page is a war being waged by individuals loyal to the ULC in Modesto. Many of these DELETE REQUESTS are from those who are extremely active on the ULC Modesto page. Ideally Wikipedia's desire is to see a creative discussion and suggestion to retain a page rather than to delete a page. These calls for DELETE'S only defies Wikipedia's objective and they indicate a non neutral stance, competitive in nature and with intent of waging war against the Universal Life Church World Headquarters.
The author of this page and I have have added a great deal of notable, 3rd party information and there is reason to believe and/or to expect even more over the coming months, pending a potential review process if such becomes necessary. This Universal Life Church World Headquarters has a place on Wikipedia.JordanFrancis (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, WP:INHERITED does not say that "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed." At least it doesn't as of this writing, and if someone tried to add that statement, it would be an incorrect statement of Wikipedia guidelines. I have no connection to the ULC in Modesto other than that I had heard of it before this AfD began, whereas I had not heard of the ULCHQ before this AfD began. Regarding Bill Clinton, you are correct to say that a church does not need to have celebrity ordinations to be notable. However, you yourself wrote in this edit, "the fact ... that this Church has ordained former politicians and judges, including the ordination of President William Clinton, that is clearly notability. What other Church ever on this planet ordained a former President?" You went on to repeat in this edit, "William Clinton became an ordained Minister. These Ministers are all well documented." I personally do not know whether President Bill Clinton was ordained by the ULC in Modesto or the ULCHQ or by anybody at all. I have not seen any reliable sources stating that he was ordained or which church ordained him if he was. But if he was ordained by the ULCHQ, someone needs to provide a reliable source that says so. And if he was not ordained by the ULCHQ, then he is not relevant to this AfD and should not have been mentioned in the first place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Close AfD without prejudice. The nomination here is based on an incorrect premise, namely, that this article is about the headquarters of the Universal Life Church. It is not. This article is about a different denomination from the Universal Life Church based in California (ULC). The Universal Life Church World Headquarters (ULCHQ) is based in Florida and shares the ULC's practice of ordaining anybody online, but differs from the ULC in that the ULCHQ promotes a specifically Christian doctrine rather than the ULC's teaching to "do only that which is right" which accommodates any religious or nonreligious belief system. If someone wants to renominate this article based on the idea that the article is not sourced to independent reliable sources, they should be able to do that separately. I would also recommend that the closing admin move this page to Universal Life Church World Headquarters with correct capitalization. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- User:Metropolitan90 - You are making changes to the site obviously to help and it is appreciated, however, please note that in regard to your edit on the Star Advertiser, you need to read the full article prior to your statement that it refers to the Modesto, Universal Life Church... Here is a Direct quote from the full article - please amend your changes to the ULHQ site and the Star Advertiser link. You are assuming the Star Advertiser piece is about the Universal Life Church. You are incorrect. It states in the article and I quote: "There are several variations of the name and ministries associated with “Universal Life Church.” They are not affiliated with the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, a Christian organization based in Carrabelle, FL., which upholds traditional marriage between a man and woman, according to the Rev. Daniel Chapin, national vice president and head pastor of the Aloha Church of Kapolei." You will note that article uses Universal Life Church throughout the article, but it is only an abbreviated form of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters. This article is huge in the fact that it clearly SEPARATES the two Churches. This validates the differences and clearly identifies Headquarters as in Carrabelle, FL Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I looked up the full article on a library database, and you are correct to say that the ULCHQ is mentioned in the Star Advertiser article with the quote you provide there. However, I do not believe that the rest of the article has to do with the ULCHQ. Here are some quotes from the article: "Of the 153 couples joined in civil unions in the first seven weeks this year - through Feb. 17 - 118 took part in ceremonies officiated by a religious denomination, and the other 35 were in ceremonies in which a judge presided .... Of the 118 religious ceremonies, 69 were performed by officiants affiliated with the Universal Life Church. .... All but eight of the 153 civil unions have been for same-sex couples ...." The quote from Daniel Chapin which you quote above indicates that the ULCHQ believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, yet the Star Advertiser article is about civil unions, most of which were performed for same-sex couples. If the ULCHQ does not support same-sex marriage, I would be surprised to find their ministers performing at least 61 civil unions for same-sex couples in a single state in a period of only seven weeks -- more than one a day. It seems more likely to me that most of those civil unions for same sex couples performed by ministers of the "Universal Life Church" were performed by ministers of the ULC of Modesto or other "Universal Life" groups rather than the ULCHQ. The Star Advertiser article is a source establishing that the ULCHQ exists, is based in Carrabelle, and is not to be confused with other "Universal Life" churches. But it is not a source that supports the claim that "Universal Life Church World Headquarters ministers are also involved in officiating over numerous faith based weddings throughout the United States, including Hawaii according to the Honolulu Star Advertiser." The Star Advertiser article does not mention specifically that ULCHQ ministers have performed any weddings in Hawaii. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- User: Metropolitan90 - In regard to your question in regards to the "Importance" of cited article reference to the instructors of the ediucational courses offered by the ULCHQ, please note that this is important on two levels. 1) Shows the distinctive educational service offered through the ULCHQ by instructors of eaccredited Universities. This is distinct and notable as well as informative for WIKI readers to know and further establishes uniqueness of ULCHQ Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- How does it make the ULCHQ distinctive and unique to sell the same courses on DVD and CD that anyone can purchase from the publisher, whether or not they have ever heard of the ULCHQ? In fact, is there any evidence that Prof. Amy-Jill Levine or Bart D. Ehrman (himself an agnostic) have ever even heard of the ULCHQ? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- User: Metropolitan90 - Additionally, you noted an edit on the first section of the ULCHQ WIKI page that there was not found a citation on the 1982 founding of the ULCHQ as noted by the BBB. Please note that there is in fact a notation and this factor is included in the citation provided atthe bottom of the cited page. Thanks. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- It does say on the BBB site that the ULCHQ started in 1982, but I don't see where it mentions that it was founded in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
User: Metropolitan90 - Thank You for your input and time. We are making progress here in discussing and creating a clear, concise WIKI page for the Universal Life Church World Headquarters. This is, and should be, the goal collectively to better clarify and provide obviously needed and important information regarding the ULCHQ in general as well as its seperate identity from other ULC organizations for WIKI encyclopedic readers. Editors of the ULCHQ WIKI page are working diligently and will make edits to ensure your, and others noted, constructive edits are succinct and paralleled by the cited third party sources and will clarify the changes and information as addressed in recent discussion. Again, obviously the value of having the ULCHQ page included in Wikipedia is being uncovered.Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the courses from Professors of accredited Universities, the uniqueness is while they maybe available from the publisher as any text maybe, they are not available at the cost ULC World HQ can offer them for. The publisher does offer discounts once in great blue moon. The ULC World HQ offers them at 50-70% below the publisher retail price. Furthermore, ULC World HQ has instructors on staff that will assist the respective individualsJordanFrancis (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Another unique factor and this should not be overlooked, but the ULC World HQ has a medical advisory board, that includes a college professor and medical professional on staff of a hospital in Canada. http://www.ulcnetwork.com/medical Dr Joel has written many articles and has included the ULC World HQ in his articles. While Dr Joel is from Canada, there is no mistaking the professionalism this man brings the table. And I quote Dr Joel's resume;
"Rev. Dr. Joel Lamoure is a multiple national and international award-winning Associate Professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Medicine at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry (SSMD), and Assistant Director of CME-Department of Psychiatry, University of Western Ontario and Teaching Associate, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto. In his hospital clinical practice, he serves as a psychiatric pharmacist at London Health Sciences Centre, Victoria Hospital. On the research side of the bench, Dr. Lamoure is an Associate Scientist at the Lawson Health Research Institute, affiliated with the London Hospitals. He is an Accreditor with Accreditations Canada specializing in medication management and mental health with an interest in infection control and ambulatory care. There are almost a dozen Ask The Expert publications written in Medscape written by Professor Lamoure. Starting in December 2008, Joel took over as the Medical Psychiatry Consultant expert for the Canadian Journal of CME and Pharmacy Mental Health expert for Pharmacy Gateway (Canadian Healthcare Network). He has recently been inducted into membership with the European Congress of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP).
He has won the Western Teaching Roll of Honour in Medicine for the past 5 academic years, the most recent being the 2009-2010 academic year . He has also won the UWO CME Award in Medicine for 2007 and the University Of Toronto Teaching Award in 2006. He has published over 100 journal papers, poster abstracts, methodologies of practice and consultant reviews on mental health medications and their impact to the patient and their quality and quantity of life. (Publications)
Joel was awarded a Fellowship in the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists (Geriatrics) in 2000, and completed his D.D. in 2011 with the Universal Life Church. Areas of interest and research include medical conditions that overlap and augment the severity of psychiatric disorders, patient care deliverable models, medical metaphysics and impacts of alternative treatments and psychopharmacology.
Rev. Dr. Lamoure is a listee in numerous publications recognizing his work including the Canadian Book of Who?s Who (2008, 2009, 2010 Centennial Ed, 2011 editions), and the prestigious referenced Marquis Book of ?Who?s Who in Medicine in the World? (7th, 8th and 9th International editions starting in 2009, Marquis Book of ?Who?s Who in the World? for 2011 and 2012 and the Marquis Book of ?Who?s Who in Science and Engineering? for the 2011-2012 edition."JordanFrancis (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete: First Rules of Wiki 1.neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The arguments given by JordainFrancis and Pastorbodhi1 are all links back to the very site in question. In fact I would not be suprised if both of these "individuals" are Michael Cauley himself as they seem to have the same jumbled writing style that is meant to confuse. No new information here and no third party unbiased reliable sources to back up these claims. The claim to be in a retail relationship with Walmart, is a link to the ULCHQ own page where they have filled out a form to be an affiliate (which anyone can do) and the last notes by JordanFrancis about the notability of Dr. Joel Lamore and the ULCHQ having a "medical advisory board" are very questionable looking. It appears this doctor was given a random title within the church but other than that has nothing to do with it... there is no ULCHQ medical advisory to be a board member of. This is a person pursuing their own self interest by writing a confusing article to convolute the subject. It is some strange form of self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rileyrickter (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — Rileyricketer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Rileyricketer This Editor Here Is Obviously Both A New Editor And New To This Discussion & Wiki in general. Visiting the previous editors discussions as well as the other 3rd party links from the ULCHQ Wiki Site will only serve to educate this editor and other parties that not all the links provided link back to the ULCHQ site, e.g., the Star Advertiser, OLELO Television, et al. This individual also did not do the research which prooves the ULCHQ Advisory Board's existence. Nevertheless this is not really the issue here. The ULCHQ WIKI page is notable and necessary if only to provide needed lines between two known ULC Organizations and the services that it provides seems certainly worthwhile. Even more pertinent here is that progress is being made to create a WIKI page which offers good citations, notability of services offered by the organization, etc., offered by unbiased WIKI editors. Simply Deleting A page such as this would be a disservice to the WIKI community. Move To Keep Page Without Prejudice. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhiPastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. A bit rich coming from an account only itself created six days ago! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Clarification on WP:INHERIT Someone has been falsely quoting repeatedly from WP:INHERIT as saying "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed.". The only place the term "famous people" appears on that page is in "Keep: there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable."... and to use that as an argument for notability overlooks the very title of the page: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
DELETE Huge conflict with requirement for independent source which defines bias as self published sources. This is PURELY cited with self published links and pr releases directly from the church itself, needs to be tagged *THIRD PARTY* for deletion. There are no links that support this topic being inherently notable anywhere other than on their own site and in their own PR releases. CONFLICT OF INTEREST this is a vanity article for the financial gain of the organization. The age of my account doesn't have anything to do with the validity of my argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rileyrickter (talk • contribs) 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The mentioning of names alludes to a hidden agenda, a lack of neutrality and Church of Scientology of which Wikipedia banned a few years ago. Look at those requesting delete, they are all active contributors to the Universal Life Church page.
NatGertler you are just looking to argue, again the objective of Wikipedia is not to see this page deleted, but rather to work together to make revisions. Metropolitan appears to be the only neutral contributor and who looks to comply with Wikipedia. Articles in Wikipedia look to inform, you are looking to compete, ultimately promoting the other page.
These entities are clearly different, they are each unique and each have their place here within Wikipedia. I will say this and metropolitan will attest, I was going to look to shut down, to delete the other Wikipedia page. I chose not to because it is not very professional nor the correct route to go. It is not the correct route to go for biased supporters of the other other ULC page to be Wiki Editors and to come on to this page and trash it, or to call others names or to ridicule.
Metropolitan and others have stated the tag should be removed from this page, I agree and my advice is for the Universal of Life Church Modesto for you to concentrate on your page. You are so busy knocking ours, you are only taking away from yours by doing so.
Wikipedia is not the place for my ULC is the better ULC...JordanFrancis (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- The material you are making up about me is both inappropriate and false on the face of it. When I point out that someone is inventing a quote and using it to misrepresent WP:INHERIT, it's because someone was inventing a quote and misrepresenting WP:INHERIT and those falsehoods should not steer the conversation. Are people who were editing the ULC article now editing this one? Yes, because after someone tried to destroy the ULC article and replace it with a promo page for the ULCHQ, this deletion discussion was mentioned on the ULC article's talk page, so it gained their attention. Does someone editing the ULC talk page make them inherently biased to ULC? Of course not. I do not limit my edits to pages for things that I support; I've edited thousands of different pages of Wikipedia, and have been editing it for over half a decade now. I have no connection to the ULC, nor have I any reason to promote them. Your description of the "objective of Wikipedia" is not well informed. If you don't want people who disagree with you to be able to edit your page, then Wikipedia is not the place to be putting it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am going to support Nat in principle in this discussion. Nat Gertler has not said anything in this discussion that was inappropriate for an Articles for Deletion discussion, and he should be treated with good faith here by the other participants in this discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Close AFD Without Prejudice- Contrary to RileyRickters note that, "There are no links that support this topic being inherently notable anywhere other than on their own site and in their own PR releases," It was noted in the above that there have been numerous 3rd party additions to this WIKI site to verify its independence and notability including the Honolulu Star Advertiser, Olelo Television, and the European Television inclusion of the ULCHQ on their page along with verifiable references to the page's uniqueness and contributions which justify keeping the ULCHQ Wiki page including references to Make A Wish Foundation and the Better Business Bureau. Since There Does Not Seem To Be A Consensus Here and The Argument By a Few Seems to Be Circular, and given the changes made by editors of the WIKI page the page should be kept and the AFD tag removed from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastorbodhi1 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Protocol note: To make the discussion easier to read, each participant should make only one recommendation (!vote) for how to deal with the article. Since Pastorbodhil previously made the same recommendation, the duplicate was struck. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
NatGertler - I assure you no one set out to destroy your page, neither myself or PastorBodhi1 had anything to do with it. It was BlanchardB who attempted to destroy it by claiming it was outdated. It is quite evident you are not willing to work with us, so be it. If this page is taken down we will appeal. There is no reason why two pages cannot exist for two completely different organizations. If you deem us not worthy of Wikipedia, where is it the other ULC is? I am not amused by accusations or name calling by editors who are to remain neutral.JordanFrancis (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Other stuff exists. This discussion is not about the merits (or lack thereof) of the other article; it is about the article on the Universal life church world headquarters. At the end of the discussion (7–10 days from initial listing), an administrator who has not otherwise been involved will evaluate whether there is consensus, based on the discussion here, to keep the article or delete it. (If the administrator feels there is no consensus, s/he may relist it for extended discussion or may close the discussion as "no consensus", in which case the article will stay up.) Any appeal would need to show that Wikipedia's discussion guidelines were not followed in the course of closing the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe the disputes are personal, and I believe third party intervention will agree. There are no issues or disputes regarding this page from any editor that has not actively posted frequently on the Universal Life Church page, not a one. Any new names are new accounts. But again every editor who has taken issue here has past connections to the ULC page. NOT ONE editor without past connections to that page has an issue with this page.
With no disrespect intended, but we need a neutral 3rd party review and also the same review of the other page Check out: WP:CONADMINJordanFrancis (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Jordan, I do have an issue with the ULCHQ page, and I deny that I have actively posted frequently on the Universal Life Church page. Please point out any edits I made to that page or related pages before this AfD began on 31 July 2012. If you can find any, I will apologize. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- And, for that matter, neither has Rileyricketer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
NatGertler - Correct me if I am wrong but RileyRickter's account was just created.
Metropolitan90 - Exactly and you've voted to remove the tags and reinstate the page.
This is an attack, NatGertler by his own self admission stated this was discussed on the Talkpage for the ULC, and it is because someone took down the ULC page. That was not us. This display is clear and rest assured this administrator will be checking IP addresses and noting the newly created accounts. It is wrong! This is a retaliation because of what some editors think we did to their precious ULC page.
Yes CFred it is about content, not about retaliation. What went down with the ULC page has no bearing on this attack of our page. Metropolitan has offered suggestions, and we've met those, we've also added other notable content. I think it would be in the best interest of all to remove this tag now, rather to bring an administrator in, because surely that administrator will take a much closer look at the other ULC page too. Wherefore it may not just be our page that is removed, it maybe the other as well.
I suggest to research Church of Scientology and what Wikipedia opted to do and I believe they will do the same with the ULC of Modesto. For the record as The Monastery has so diligently pointed out, I possess data bases for both the ULC Modesto and the Monastery of their Ministers which includes IP addresses. I will tell you right here and now there are matches I don't need to await an administrator.
We are not taking away from Wiki page, if anything we are distinguishing between the two and is in the best interest for all parties.JordanFrancis (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- JordanFrancis:
- Here is the edit where you deleted all of the information about the ULC, filling its page instead with information about ULCHQ]. Here and here are the edits where Pastorbodhi1 attempted the same thing. So your claim that that was "not us" runs into problems.
- Your suggestion that the tag be removed and this AfD ended does not have a procedural basis. There clearly is not an extant consensus for such removal that would support a WP:SNOWBALL.
- Your assumption that an administrator will take a look at the other page is not based in Wikipedia procedure (that other page is not currently under AfD, and even if it was, its likely a different admin would be involved in closing it).
- Your statement that people should not want admins looking at the other page is bizarre; those of us who have worked longed and diligently on Wikipedia have not done so to avoid having the work looked at.
- Your assumptions about why experienced editors are involved in this AfD isn't well grounded in fact nor in the history of edits.
- Your belief that the admin looking at this AfD will be investigating IP addresses is not grounded in standard Wikipedia practices. If for some reason an admin were to be looking at the edits of IP users in this discussion, the only ones they'll find are this, someone taking the against-deletion stance.
- Your claim that "not a one" of the detractors here wasn't a frequent editor of the ULC page has yet another exception; I just checked the thousands of edits that User:Blanchardb has made over the past year, and not a one of them was on the ULC page.
- I recommend that if your goal is to prevent the deletion of this page, you ground yourself in knowledge of Wikipedia procedure and guidelines, and not in inventions and attempts to rewrite history. The administrator's job in the closing of an AfD is to find a consensus within the accurate arguments made on the basis of such guidelines. The considerable effort you're putting into painting an invented personality for those who disagree with you is not time well spent if preserving the page is your goal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
NatGertler - It was BlanchardB who initially did the change (revert) of the ULC Page, it was not us. Yes after BlanchardB did it, we attempted to revert such back after some one else undid what BlanchardB did. We put no NO redirect from that page to this page.
BlanchardB reverted and redirected the other ULC site initially, because he felt the two were the same and that the other was outdated, he saw the tags and because of that he made the change at his discretion. PastorBodhi1 nor I made this change or redirect initially and you know it.
After they were switched back BlanchardB started the deletion of this article for as he categorized spammy tendencies. You responded and corrected him as follows:
"**Actually, BlanchardB, this article does not appear to be about the Universal Life Church discussed in the other article (at least, if you catch it when the editors of this article aren't trying to overwrite that page with this one), but about a totally separate organization that has a similar name (a common situation in the religious world). --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)"
Excuse my mistake for not including BlanchardB. BlanchardB and Metropolitan90 are the ONLY TWO editors or administrators who have made no edits of the ULC page. But you yourself corrected BlanchardB and Metropolitan90 again has suggested to remove the tag and reinstate the page.
ALL OTHER EDITORS by your self admission has ties to the other ULC Page and who have played a major role and has had a keen interest in maintaining that page, which happens to be a competitor.
My contention is that they, as well as you NatGertler have ties to the ULC in Modesto, or specifically to Amy Smith Long. The same IP addresses show up in the data bases on ulc.net, ulcseminary.org, themonastery.org or ulchq.com They match including yours.
This prohibits you or any of these editors from remaining neutral in evaluating this page, you all have ties to the other ULC. The only two who don't BlanchardB and Metropolitan90
You may know who I am, but do not think for a minute I do not know who you are.
The only requests for deletion are coming from those with ties to the ULC Modesto. Yes BlanchardB initiated, but he initiated such for spamming, which you corrected.
I quote you: ":*Your claim that "not a one" of the detractors here wasn't a frequent editor of the ULC page has yet another exception; I just checked the thousands of edits that User:Blanchardb has made over the past year, and not a one of them was on the ULC page."
This quote of yours is an admission - you admit that everyone other than Metropolitain90 or BlanchardB HAS ties to the other ULC Page.
You further admit this assault of editors requesting delete of this page stem from retaliation, because you feel we redirected your page to ours. This is a war and you are the leader, quite apparent instructing these others to become involved.
Take away you and your pro ULC Modesto Ministers and there is NO issues with this page by any other editor that can't be fixed and that this page not be deleted. You are looking to delete it out vindictiveness, retaliation and to diffuse your competition. You have clearly admitted this in what you have posted hereto. You show your lack of neutrality and I believe an independent administer will see through your little games and frankly you are creating a bigger risk for deletion for the other ULC page.JordanFrancis (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. That is an impressive blanket of falsehood. That the same message claims both that BlanchardB did the change to the ULC page and that he has never edited the ULC page is an achievement. But it is not a technique that is apt to move things forward, nor is inventing "admissions" on my behalf, particularly ones that not only are not derived from but which actually contradict things that I've said. (I've already listed a third dissenter who does not match your claim about "not a one" who was not involved in the ULC page. Want a fourth? User:Cindamuse, whose post here is signed "Cindy".) I suggest that you start looking around at other Articles For Deletion discussions, and learn what arguing techniques gain traction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Editors & Contributors - Allow me to clarify that I personally made no purposeful edits to any other ULC WIKI page with the exception of This WIKI page, The Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc., which has been in discussion here. It was my understanding that original Delete/Copy/Paste modifications to the Other ULC page was made by other WIKI Editors. This being noted, we could continue the verbal volleyball discussion in this regard, however, it is my contention and goal as an editor/contributor to attempt to keep an unbiased view and create an informative and professional WIKI page for the Universal Life Church World Headquarters; which is both succinct and meets the demands of an Encyclopedic page as defined by WIKI. To this effect, please note below the current and past edits/modifications I have done on the ULCHQ WIKI page. While It appears to me, personally, that there may be potential, definitive Editorial bias from other WIKI Editors, I could be wrong and, regardless, this should not interfere with the creation of a ULCHQ page so long as the page meets WIKI standards for creation. This should remain our focus and good faith edits to do so have been made by myself. I trust that collectively those individuals involved in this discussion to date, coupled with any new editors who add to this discussion in the future will refrain from personal attacks, assumptions, etc.... Now, returning back to the edits made to create a positive, verifiable, informative and unique page so as to avoid page deletion and create the recognition the organization I believe deserves, please note some of the modifications made which I believe add credibility to the site :
1 - Edited WIKI Page To Ensure All Information Was Factual and Unique To The Universal Life Church World Headquarters 2 - Added 3rd party references to the ULCHQ WIKI page as required by WIKI to show organizations merit and uniqueness including references made to the ULCHQ by the Honolulu Star Advertiser, The Better Business Bureau, the Olelo Television Network as well as reference to the ULCHQ own site (Doing So Is Often Standard Across WIKI pages. However as per WIKI guidelines, the ULCHQ site is not the sole reference point). Please note that these, along with the PR Releases as published and referred to, are valid references as they require verification outside of the ULCHQ as well prior to public posting, which was indeed accomplished. 3 - Created informative information for this WIKI page so as to meet WIKI standards of uniqueness and importance including the information provided on the ULCHQ home based credential courses and outreach programs including the WALMART food program (Which while available to any organization to sign up as a part of is only provided by the ULCHQ), the Youth Ministry (Which is unique to the ULCHQ) and the Children's Miracle Network (3rd Party Reference To Honors Certificate and Program Information is provided on the page) 4 - In all of the above information on the ULCHQ WIKI page was included with consorted attempt to avoid promotional bias.
All of the aforementioned asserted, as I have alluded to in previous posts, the ULCHQ page should be kept (Amended As Necessary) and not deleted. In part, this is true if only to differentiate between two very seperate organizations with very seperate and unique histories and current programming. The general WIKI public I would undauntedly assert researching the ULC in general will find provided information on both ULC pages, including this one very informative as they research the phenomena of online ordinations and online church ministries. Thank you. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Allow me to clarify that I personally made no purposeful edits to any other ULC WIKI page with the exception of This WIKI page, The Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc., which has been in discussion here. Then who was using your account when it added the for tag to direct readers to this page, when it added the PROD tag, and when it added the AfD tag? Those edits do not look like ones which you would've intended for this page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
NatGertler - I Cannot Answer Definitively Your Question posed regarding who may have been, "Using My Account..." As Far As I Know I Am The Only One With Access To My PastorBodhi1 Account. Regardless - We Move On, Hopefully..... copy and paste of previous comment removed .Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- User:Pastorbodhi1, this discussion is not like a spoken conversation - your previous comment is still on the page and readable, so it is disruptive to copy-paste a second copy of it here. For that reason, I've removed your second copy of your comment. Of that comment, only your point #2 is relevant to this discussion, because that's the only point that addresses the notability of this organization. However, almost all of your points there are incorrect- press releases do not meet WP:RS, nor does the Better Business Bureau or the organization's own web site. The newspaper articles you cite are not primarily about this organization. I propose an experiment to you. Make a copy of the relevant article in your sandbox. Remove all information that is not in one of the two newspaper articles cited. Now, look at the article. Is it still useful as an encyclopedia article? If the article is deleted, it will be only because there is not enough information in reliable sources to put in a useful encyclopedia article. That won't be any kind of judgement of the organization, but only a reflection of an encyclopedia's need to have verified information from independent sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - the promotional tone can be fixed with a lot of pruning and editing, but the lack of notability and reliable secondary sources cannot. --bonadea contributions talk 19:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - There's a lot of WP:MEAT and/or WP:SOCK going on here, on both sides of the argument. User:Pastorbodhi1, User:JordanFrancis, and User:Julieanne123 are all editing from the same IP. User:Rileyrickter and User:DavidOff1234 are likewise editing from the same IP. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked I hope no one minds, but I've taken the liberty of blocking all the people identified by User:Jpgordon as meatpuppets/sockpuppets. That might help simplify this discussion, so that it could be refocused on the question, "Is the Universal Life Church World Headquarters notable enough for Wikipedia to need an article about it?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, with things becalmed, let's do a quick run-through of where we stand. There doesn't seem to be any general support for this being the same organization or directly related to the Universal Life Church, so the original objection is moot, and I don't see much traction being gained by the suggestion that the articles be merged. So what we're left with is whether this subject meets the notability guidelines, and that's been argued with primarily these sources:
- The Better Business Bureau source is just a database listing, so that does not convey notability. Any business that has ever had a complaint and possibly some that don't get listings.
- The Star Advertiser is a reliable source, but the article just has one parenthetical aside about World Headquarters. That is not significant coverage.
- The DMOZ source is both a user-editable source (and thus not reliable) and merely a listing of links (thus not significant coverage).
- The Wikipedia source is a user-editable source, and thus not reliable.
- The Olelo Network is a public access network, which means that anyone can get something on there, it is neither a reliable source nor a significant one; it's pretty much the TV equivalent of having a page on Facebook.
So I'm still not seeing notablity established. Am I overlooking anything? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, much of the above discussion is of little or no relevance, for various reasons. However, if we sift through all the chaff and look at those parts of the discussion which relate to the question "are there reliable independent sources showing that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines?" then the answer is a clear "no". Nat Gertler has summarised the relevant points pretty clearly in the post above this one. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I concur with NatGertler & JamesBWatson but would add (i) One mention in a reliable source does not necessarily establish notability and although external does the Star Advertiser really qualify as a sufficiently knowledgeable source to back notablility (furthermore, which ULC is it refering to?); (ii) The sbwire references seem to be recycled press releases from UCLWHQ itself; (iii) I contacted Dr Ehrman and he replied immediately denying all knowledge of UCLWHQ – see [37] for details and I have deleted the claim from the lead section. This last makes me feel the article also infringes WP:PROMO Jpacobb (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2012 (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.
References[edit]
- ^ http://www.nme.com/news/lana-del-rey/64117
- ^ http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/77282/LISTEN-Unheard-Lana-Del-Rey-Album-Leaks-Online-
- ^ http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a384853/lana-del-reys-may-jailer-sirens-album-leaks-in-full.html
- ^ http://popcrush.com/lana-del-rey-never-let-me-go/
- ^ http://www.clashmusic.com/news/lana-del-rey-track-leaks
- ^ http://www.thestrut.com/2012/05/31/lana-del-reys-first-album-sirens-leaks/
- ^ http://ryanseacrest.com/2012/01/09/new-lana-del-rey-track-national-anthem-leaked-audio/
- ^ http://www.hardcandymusic.com/2012/05/unreleased-lana-del-rey-tracks-continue-to-leak.html
- ^ http://popcrush.com/lana-del-rey-ride-die-demo-snippet/
- ^ http://www.ripitup.com.au/article/5742
- ^ http://www.2dopeboyz.com/2012/06/29/aap-rocky-speaks-on-leaked-track-w-lana-del-rey/
- ^ http://www.wearepopslags.com/some-lana-del-rey-demos-leak-ride-or-die-bitch-lift-your-eyes/
- ^ http://www.wackymusiccrazy.org/2012/04/music-leak-lana-del-rey-life-your-eyes.html
- ^ http://www.wackymusiccrazy.org/2012/03/music-leak-lana-del-rey-match-made-in.html
- ^ http://www.prefixmag.com/news/hear-unreleased-lana-del-rey-track-never-let-me-go/65545/