Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for A Course in Miracles

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Merge with A Course in Miracles. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for A Course in Miracles

edit

Reason the page should be deleted:

This article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

  • WP:CSD#A7 - This article appears to meet criterion for a speedy deletion: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
  • WP:CORP - This subject of this article fails to meet the criteria for companies and corporations.

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

  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
  • WP:NOR - This article attempts to establish that an Foundation for A Course in Miracles is reputible and notable based upon the existence of one relatively unknown web-site, it's own, and two internally linked "See Also" 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.
  • 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. This article refers under the link "million dollar lawsuit" which may or may not be true, however, the statement is misleading and cannot be verified by the article it points to.

  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external link.
and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 19:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ACIM movement as a whole is notable, and, if this is the primary organization which originated and supports it, it would appear to be notable for that reason. The article, despite the nominator's rather boilerplated text, appears to be NPOV. I agree that some sources would be an advantage, but their absence for this sort of article is, IMO, a secondary consideration. Tevildo 19:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that the nominator is using the same "secondary consideration" for attempting to delete several other ACIM-related articles. -- Andrew Parodi 23:54, 27 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]
Then I hope to see about 2/3 of the rest of Wikipedia nominated for deletion. Again, a website that will give time to Celebrity sex tape and List of people with breast implants and not allow for an article about the main foundation in a growing spiritual field, is a site with some interesting issues at hand. -- Andrew Parodi 02:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed that the statement about the law suit on this page is turned around backwards logically, that on the page it states that the defendant sued the plaintiff. Ste4k 12:48, 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_A_Course_in_Miracles&oldid=1070284949"