Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Baptism

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 DELETED by snowball. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Baptism

Unnecessary content fork from Barack Obama TrulyBlue (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is history about Barack Obama. This quote existed in the Barack Obama wiki article for nearly two years from November 2006 March 2008. I contend that those who oppose Barack Obama would like to hide this fact so the false rumors that Obama is a muslim remains. This wiki page should exist.--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single line quote that creator failed to insert into the main Barack Obama article. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it appears that there has been some opposition to adding this quote into the main article... and following a discussion on the article's talk page a user decided to take his ball elsewhere. Despite not being overtly POV and simply being a quote that asserts the subject's religion, it is still not a good thing. one brave monkey 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a historical reference. Again, the quote was maintained in the main wiki article for nearly two years.--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe it should be included in Wikipedia, I suggest seeking consensus on the talk page of the main article. As it is, the article being considered here is a fork, in violation of WP:CFORK. CorpITGuy (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment; Paul, if this detail has a place, then the main article is where it should go. If you fail to gain consensus to add it, then I'm afraid that is how WP works. Creating another article to add this info is frowned upon and it could be seen as disruptive. I'd advise to continue your discussion on the talk page and review whether it is of the utmost importance to add this quote. one brave monkey 17:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a request to add, but a request to reinsert what was already there for nearly two years. Do you people understand that? The quote existed in main Barack Obama wiki article for nearly two years. I don't see any consensus to have it removed. Yet you people would rather keep such quotes as the following in the main Barack Obama wiki artitcle, "Obama plays basketball, a sport he participated in as a member of his high school's varsity team.[164]"--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there are numerous references to his association with the church, and oportunities for specific refs to baptism in the Barack Obama category, maybe under Public image of Barack Obama#Religion. The baptism does not deserve an article all to itself, however. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious forking. This belongs in either the main article or (more likely) shouldn't be included at all. CorpITGuy (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus interpreation: We will not allow one single mention on the entire WikiPedia website that Barack Obama was baptized in 1988. Show me one place in this entire website that you'll allow such a quote to exist, including the reference --> Obama (2006), pp. 202–208. Portions excerpted in: Obama, Barack (October 23, 2006). "My Spiritual Journey". TIME. Retrieved 2007-09-30. See also: Guess, J. Bennett (February 9, 2007). "Barack Obama, Candidate for President, is 'UCC'". United Church News. Retrieved 2007-09-30.--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not accurate. This is specifically focused on deleting the Barack Obama Baptism fork article. You can still include it in the main Obama article if you can gain consensus. I suggest re-wording it and seeking consensus for a biographical statement regarding his Christian baptism that references your sources. In its present state, you won't find consensus. CorpITGuy (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people are even reading it before posting "delete." Rewording is out of the question because it is a quote. If people read it they would know it's a quote.--PaulLowrance (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware that it is a quote. You should read up on assuming good faith if you expect to accomplish any of your goals on Wikipedia. In the meantime, I strongly suggest you work on some type of consensus to include a variant of that material on the main Obama article. No one here is against you; this article about which we are writing is simply a fork article and should be deleted. CorpITGuy (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call it a fork when you people will not allow on any wikipage? This is funny because in the wiki page on "fork" it says "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts" Here's a little fact: You people are preventing information. After asking too many times as to where the information goes you still cannot answer. OK, you people said it goes in the Barack Obama page, but how interesting that you will not allow it there. Perhaps this calls for some higher authority at wikipedia to analyze what you people are doing.--PaulLowrance (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the user was not able to get this information into the main article, then the user just made a new sub article for it. Obvious forking. Brothejr (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with prejudice, as this is an obvious content fork placed onto the project by a frustrated user who failed to build consensus for it in the main article. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious POV fork - not nearly notable enough to deserve its own article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer as to where in wikipedia one can add that Barack Obama was baptized in 1988. Where? You refuse to allow anyone to reinsert it in the Barack Obama wiki page when it was there for nearly two years. This is WikiPedia with rules, not "a group can take over the Obama page and do whatever they want." Why allow statements in the wiki that Barack plays basketball, but you people refuse to allow one single mention in this entire wiki website that Barack was baptized in 1988? Can anyone answer?--PaulLowrance (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have already pointed out that there are various places where a properly referenced mention can go, and the "Obama is a closet Muslim" controversy is covered here. The baptism could be mentioned there, or, with consensus, on the main Barack obama wiki. TrulyBlue (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that page just now and it's nice to see some statistics as to just how many people falsely believe Barack is a muslim. My Mother believes Barack is a muslim, but I don't have the heart to correct her and start some heated discussion since she's getting old. She listens to the news each night, but obviously never heard that Barack was baptized in 1988. I can't understand why the consensus would want such information hidden.--PaulLowrance (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, it would be great if you could add the quote there. BTW, a wikipedia search on Barack Obama baptized showed the following results -->

"No page with that title exists.
...
[1] Antichrist
...
[2] Dan Rooney
...
[3] John McCain"

Even John McCain made it in the search list, but no Barack Obama! What's wrong with this picture? And may I ask this, if WikiPedia consensus can remove anything then what's to stop say some Christian church community from owning wikipages?--PaulLowrance (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, at least as at this precise date and time. Hit 1 (apart from your new forked page) is Barack Obama. Also, when you made the above contribution the article had the baptism in it, so I'm surprised that you didn't see it in the search results (possible database lag on searches? I don't know how searches work sufficiently to know if that's a possible cause). Anyway, it's in Barack Obama, no need to fork, please can we all go home now? TrulyBlue (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious content fork verging on soapboxing. PaulLowrance, you could seek consensus to mention the issue in the "Barack Obama" or "Public image of Barack Obama" articles. - Ev (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the current version of the "Barack Obama" article already mentions this fact in the Family and personal life section: "He was baptized at Trinity church in 1988." - Ev (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the day when wanting to post "information" becomes soapboxing.--PaulLowrance (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already covered in Barack Obama. Edison (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no mention of the Barack Obama baptism. I searched high and low. I've been a system admin for several servers since 1997. I've been a software engineer for ~ 30 years and was programming computers since the age of 13. So I know how to search a web page, and I literally search dozens of times on the Barack Obama web page. Here is the proof -->

At this very moment you can see the google cache for yesterday, Oct 28, 2008 10:36:43 GMT.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:1lCewv9YnT8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama+%22barack+obama%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a

If you hurry up and view googles cache before google updates it you will see there is no mention of Barack's baptism at the Trinity United Church of Christ.

At this moment there is a small mention of the Barack baptism without a history change, which proves that wikipedia pages are being modified at a high level. As suspected, to say the least the wikipedia website is being abused for political purposes. Also, I know for fact that ~~ one month ago the Barack Obama wiki article contained detailed information about his baptism. For example it mentioned the entire name of the church, which is "Trinity United Church of Christ." At this moment the Barack Obama article only says "He was baptized at Trinity church in 1988."

So without any wiki history the wiki article went from a detailed mention of Barack's baptism, to nothing, and now back to an outline of his baptism. At least I now have my personal proof. Having been a system admin and software engineer, I know how easy it is to place backdoors on websites to allow key people to modify the pages and history logs without notice. What a shame. Can't humanity accomplish anything free of abuse?--PaulLowrance (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2008 (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.