Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Circle of Faith: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:18, 3 November 2007

International Circle of Faith

Contested PROD. I have been unable to locate reliable sources suggesting notability of the organization or any of its individual members. This article was also created by a member of the organization, based on the username. Someguy1221 00:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert notability, COI as noted above, serves as soapbox. faithless (^speak) 00:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - WP:OR and WP:VSCA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - and only weak because the article still needs work to clean it up. I think a large enough body of external references has been added now to make it a good idea to keep the article. However, a cleanup tag should be kept on this thing, as it'll still need a fair bit of TLC to improve further. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is no different that similar articles for other Christian denominations. There is certainly many refernces, links and the names read like the who's who of this groups particular segment of Christiandome. The fact that a member of the group contributed as a writer of the article does not take away from it's credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopicof (talk • contribs)

Comment. The problem is that there is no evidence of notability, and the sources given are all primary sources, which do not help in establishing notability. Someguy1221 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. There is a group of us working on this article. We are all working from the same sign in name on our office computer. We used other similar articles for a guideline. We are new to wikipedia, so it is a learning experience. We didn't realize we would receive critique so quickly. We have already and will continue to add notibility to the article. Your help and incite is much appreciated. GR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopicof (talk • contribs) 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment User:Bishopicof admits in the above comment that the account is shared by more than one person. That comment was reported to WP:UAA. The account was indef blocked, as shared accounts are not allowed. Each person in the office/organization may create an individual account to be used only by that person. The IP address was not blocked, so there should be no difficulty creating those accounts. - KrakatoaKatie 11:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN original research... - Rjd0060 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI and OR... toss in the NN as well. Jmlk 1 7 07:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Pure vanity soapboxing by the organisation Mayalld 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment From Wikipedia, "Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions." George Rodgers 2:01 November 2, 2007 (UTC)

Keep I'm not Pentecostal, I'm not previously familiar with the ICOF, but I don't see this as a "soapbox" for anything. Problems with point of view and neutrality are something one must be ever mindful of when one is writing about something one considers important. Neutrality problems aside, if the ICOF is as broad as its website asserts, then it's a notable development in the history of the Pentecostal faith. Historically, the individual Pentecostal churches have been vocal about being independent of any organization. Thus, the idea of unification of churches from around the world is an unprecedented development. I think that, if challenged, Bishopicof and other authors could come up with more sources from Christianity Today and other published sources. Suggestion to authors-- quote more directly from the articles that you've cited, link to them if you can, since a major point raised by the deletion advocates is whether the ICOF is notable to persons outside of the Pentecostal faith. Mandsford 12:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am also not Pentecostal but I am of the Christian faith. The original comment was about notability. Looks like this has been well addressed. Whether or not someone connected with the denomination has collaborated the article is irrelevant. On that basis all news organizations would be eleminated from credibility as their reporters work for them. The point on sharing was obviously not something they were hiding. It is evident that collaboration should be applauded in any article. Seems like the author is learning how to list wikipedia style. The list of people connected with the ICOF is impressive and notable. My brief research shows that Mark Hanby and Teklemarian Gezahange (not sure the spelling is correct) are among the notables who have spoken at their conferences. Both are notable in the Pentecostal movement and newsworthy in itself. The later gentleman, Teklemarian, is the leader of a huge Pentecostal group (some estimate 2 million or more) in Ethiopia. Articles I have read say the group was part of a huge split with another Pentecostal group a couple of years ago. The group is called the Apostolic Church of Ethiopia and has by some counts 2 million members. The ICOF has one of the Nigerian Presidential candidates as a alumni. Not impressive in the US, but huge if you are a Nigerian. Legitimacy does not seem to be the problem. The author may be guilty of being religious, but there must be room on wikipedia for persons of faith just like there is room for faithless persons. There is also no evidence other than comments here that this person is connected to the ICOF, so it may be a leap that this is vanity soapboxing. I agree with Mandsford that neutrality should be aside. This article seems no less opinionated than many on wikipedia. I also agree with Mandsford that the article is very newsworthy as unification efforts of all Christian churches is noteworthy and newsworthy. Keep the article. kitcarlson 6:39 1 November 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Strong Keep

I am Pentecostal and one of the contributors to the orignal article. Keep it not because we submitted a good article but keep because it is a good and relevant article now that we have had some help from Faithlessthewonderboy, AllGlorytothehypotoad, and kitcarson. Thank you. George Rodgers 1:16 November 2, 2007 This template must be substituted.

Delete for lack of third party sourcing. There are a number of references listed, to be sure, but they almost all date from before the date of the founding of the movement, as thus refer to the Pentecostal movement in general. The two from later also seem to be general. The rest of it is a presentation of their doctrine and a list of their members. no objection to the writing of an actual sourced article. DGG (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 *''' Strong Keep'''
 I am Pentecostal and one of the contributors to the orignal article.  Keep it not because we submitted a good article but keep because it is a good and relevant article now that we have had some help from Faithlessthewonderboy, AllGlorytothehypotoad, and kitcarson.  Thank you.   [[User:George Rodgers|George Rodgers]] 1:16 November 2, 2007{{spa|George Rodgers}}
+*'''Delete''' for lack of third party sourcing. There are a number of  references listed, to be sure, but they almost all date from before the date of the founding of the movement, as thus refer to the Pentecostal movement in general. The two from later also seem to be general.  The rest of it is a presentation of their doctrine and a list of their members. no objection to the writing of an actual sourced article. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)