Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACIM church movement

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 Merged in to ACIM. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACIM church movement

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:NOR - This article attempts to establish that an ACIM church movement exists based upon the existence of two relatively unknown web-sites; niether of which reference an ACIM church movement, and 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.

WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links.

and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 14:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's not unremarkable, and significance is noted. User Ste4k appears to be on an anti-ACIM jihad, as this is one of a long list of AfDs this editor is suddenly proposing, all using an identical list of "concerns," above, and all from the same general topic. I have no personal interest in ACIM, other than that I assisted in arbitrating a dispute, and have since noticed Ste4k's unusual activity here. -The Editrix 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main ACIM article. Tevildo 16:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability established. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tevildo. JChap 21:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tevildo. --DaveG12345 04:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tevildo -- GWO
Strong keep as per above comments. -- Andrew Parodi 08:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ACIM article, seems the obvious course. Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to inform fellow editors: it appears that the nomination of this page by Ste4k for deletion is a “bad faith” deletion attempt. Ste4k has recently submitted deletion nominations for all of the following A Course in Miracles-related articles: ACIM church movement, Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Attitudinal healing, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Community Miracles Center, Gary Renard, Kenneth Wapnick. And in the article Authorship of A Course in Miracles, Ste4k will not accept ANY websites as “verifiable” websites with regard to ACIM, including http://www.acim.org/ and http://www.facim.org/, both of which are the official websites of California-based non-profit organizations. This editor's deletion attempts are merely personal bias masquerading as adherence to Wikipedia policy. And it appears that this editor has a history with this kind of behavior. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother Australia series 6 -- Andrew Parodi 07:57, 28 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? 12:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tevildo. It's relevant info but at the moment does not justify a separate article. Tyrenius 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tevildo. Eusebeus 13:00, 30 June 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.