Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Inner Peace

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:27, 2 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - There is a large volume of text here. However, nearly all of it is from two users. I have examined the edit history, and I have found that most users are clearly in favour of 'delete'. - Richardcavell 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Inner Peace

[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

THisbelieves that this article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

  • WP:CSD#A7 - This article appears to meet criterion for a speedy deletion: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
Comment. Completely subjective and biased statement. A Course In Miracles is one of the most notable books in the entire New Age and New Thought genre. Foundation for Inner Peace is the original and current publisher of ACIM. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CORP - This subject of this article fails to meet the criteria for companies and corporations.
Comment Could this possibly be because the subject in question is not a company or a corporation but a non-profit organization? -- Andrew Parodi 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service.

Comment This is not "self-promotion" by any stretch of the imagination. Take a look at the history of the page and see that this article was started by a man named Scott Perry. On his personal website, Scott Perry is identified as a "student" of ACIM who lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan and is a professional "licensed master plumber" [1]. Foundation for Inner Peace, on the other hand, is in California and was started by Judy Skutch, a woman who comes from a wealthy New York family that, during her childhood, used to entertain Eleanor Roosevelt during breakfast (citation: Journey Without Distance[2]). Mrs. Skutch hardly needs the help of a professional plumber in getting word out about the organization she helped to found. (No disrespect to plumbers. The point I'm making is obvious.) Foundation for Inner Peace did not start this article. Besides, they are a non-profit organization that does not need any advertisement anyway. ACIM has been a steady seller for more than 20 years. Go to any bookstore and you will find it there ... all without any promotion! (You will never see an ad for ACIM in any magazine. It doesn't need it. It is grass roots and spread by word of mouth.) -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
Comment. Nor is Wikipedia a place for people to disguise their own personal bias as neutral editorial procedure. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOR - This article attempts to establish that an Foundation for Inner Peace is reputible and notable based upon the existence of two relatively unknown web-sites, one it's own, and two internally linked "Related Links" pages, both of which create a circular reference to themselves. This violation of policy is not about the topic matter content. It doesn't matter if the topic matter is true or not.
It only matters:
1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.
2. that those sources are reliable.
It is therefore based solely on original research.
Comment. Wikipedia states that there is a difference between "notable" and "famous." Foundation for Inner Peace is not famous. But it IS notable. Whether you had heard of these sites or organizations is not the point. The point is that within their field these organizations are notable. Oh, and it is hardly "original research" to mention an organization and then link to that organization's official website. That is actually called "verification," the thing you have claimed on three ACIM-related pages to hold so dear, and yet it is also the thing you cannot accept with regard to ACIM. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:VER - This article is wholly information which is unverifiable. According to policy; facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Failing WP:CORP, the topic of this article is insufficiently reputible to be referencing itself.
Comment. This information is entirely verifiable if you read what is linked to in the article. For some unusual reason, you will not accept this. You just do not want ACIM to be notable. Your personal bias is showing. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links.
Comment. The proper response to such a situation is to work to improve the article, not to delete it entirely. If the article is about a notable topic (and it is), then it needs to be worked on, not deleted. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to whom? You? So, your word over thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people that ACIM is not notable? Do a search for ACIM and see how many hits you get. -- Andrew Parodi 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad, but merge any useful material to main ACIM article. JChap 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spamvertisement --Nick Y. 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable group. I hope that other editors on this page realize that the person who nominated this page, an editor by the name of Ste4k, is currently on a rampage against A Course In Miracles. Despite the fact that there is a great deal of very acceptable and verified information about ACIM (as well as Foundation for Inner Peace), this editor wants two pages about the topic deleted, and on the main ACIM page he/she will not listen to reason and accept a verified and trustworthy citation when one is presented. This particular editor is working from the basis of personal bias. Please take this into account. -- Andrew Parodi 08:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge to ACIM. This article does not assert the significance of the group - no evidence of size, influence, media coverage, uncited, no independent discussion of the group. So the article itself cries out for deletion. Whether the subject could be salvaged would depend on the existence of sources I am not sure I can be bothered to look for because I am a bad person and why should I care if the article author doesn't? Just zis Guy you know? 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice My original nomination is no longer intact and has been edited. I remain WP:0RR. Ste4k 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I get frustrated by the fact that you all say it has not verifiable evidence. It is a book publisher. It is verified that this exists. I'm also frustrated by the lack of "good faith" in all of this. These articles were started by a very nice and well meaning man who was not attempting to do anything other than contribute articles he thought would be of value to other people. There is no denying that Ste4k (or whatever) has been spiteful and mean spirited all the way through. With that, delete the article. I don't care. -- Andrew Parodi 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it is not a publisher. The book's contents are public domain. And as a publisher they only printed perhaps a couple hundred books out of a small print shop known as Freeperson's press. Have you read the valid secondary sources? The court case? Ste4k 13:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foundation_for_Inner_Peace&oldid=1069477277"