Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Luis Shrine Desecration (Mormons)

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 as a violation of copyright under a speedy tag applied separate to this discussion. - J Greb (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Luis Shrine Desecration (Mormons)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This exceedingly minor news event occurred five years ago. Not seeing any long-term notability or mention in reliable sources since the date the event became known to the general public. Some BLP issues as well, and copyright issues with respect to the images. NellieBly (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Request you abstain if you are a member of the Mormon Church if another Mormon has voted voted and request that only one Church member vote . Also, it's noteworthy and has a plethera of sources which meet WP:V. The images were posted on Photobucket and are all over the internet and the authors themselves released them into the public domain. Go and check. And the denver post is a reliable news source and so is the associated press, articles for both exist. Justamanhere (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The images in this article are from Commons, but there is no actual evidence that these images were ever released into the public domain. Just because an image is on Flickr or Photobucket doesn't mean diddlysquat with respect to copyright; most images on Flickr and Photobucket are copyright. Anyone can upload an image to Flickr even if they aren't the copyright holder, and a quick search found one of these images on over 20 feeds - which one is the creator's feed? Who knows if any of them are. Without a specific release that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have come specifically the creator of this photo we cannot and MUST not assume these images are in the public domain. I've tagged the Commons images as possibly unfree. And as a disclaimer: I am not a Mormon or a Catholic or any sort of Christian, and I have no ulterior motives for bringing this up to AFD. My only motive is to remove non-notable subjects from the Wikipedia, especially those where there could be serious BLP issues. --NellieBly (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you can explain how denverpost, associatedpress, and other news organizations used the images posted by the missionaries themsevles on Photobucket? Was their use Fair Use or are the images in the public domain. 69.171.160.187 (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so there is no confusion, User:69.171.160.187 and User:Justamanhere are the same editor. 72Dino (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then someone needs to fix mediawiki because it says I am logged in sometimes and records IP instead of my account. Go figure. 69.171.160.187 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor event with no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. 72Dino (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No more notability established than for any of the scores (hundreds) of desecrations which occur annually in the U.S and around the world targeting practically any religious group we can name. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that 'human sacrifice' was or is apparently a part of secret as of yet undisclosed Mormon Rituals. Can someone verify that these young men were in fact just 'idiots' or were they actually performing authentic Mormon Rituals involving human sacrifice. Inquiring minds want to know. 69.171.160.187 (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to expose secret conspiracies. They need to be exposed elsewhere, in reliable sources, and then they can be reported here. Until you have a RS for these secret rituals, they are irrelevant to this discussion. --GenericBob (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let me count the ways. The last bigoted remark takes the cake. This is an article about a regrettable but minor and non-notable act of religious vandalism. The article pushes a ~~anti-Mormon~~ point of view hostile to Mormonism and is written by a single purpose account who displays no fewer that four ~~anti-Mormon~~ user boxes hostile to Mormonism on his user page. The article is illustrated with images that are almost certainly copyright violations. This new editor has been dedicated in the past few days to working on articles pertaining to Mormonism. His request that only one Mormon be allowed to express an opinion in this AfD debate is totally out of line. Any editor of any faith or none is welcome to participate here. I am not a Mormon, don't care for Mormonism, and don't usually get involved with topics related to Mormonism. But this article and this editor's behavior are both way over the line. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Anti-Mormon' is a hate speech term used by Mormons and is equivalent to using the word 'nigger' to refer to a person of African Heritage. Please do not use that word directed at me again. Also, It's clear you are a Church member or you would not be using it. Thanks. 69.171.160.187 (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are absurd, and a visit to my user page and edit history will clearly show that you are wrong. I am a Jew who has written a biography of a rabbi and a Jewish educator, as well as an article about a Hindu festival and a Russian Orthodox cathedral. Only a small percentage of my edits have anything to do with religion. My edit history shows that I am a constructive editor with over 15,000 edits who has never gotten involved with Mormon topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those who have been labeled "anti-Mormon" object to the designation, arguing that the term implies that disagreement or criticism of Mormonism stems from some inherent "anti-Mormon" prejudice, rather than being part of a legitimate factual or religious debate. Eric Johnson, for example, makes a distinction between "personal animosity and intellectual dialogue". Johnson insists that he is motivated by "love and compassion for Mormons", and that while he "[might] plead guilty to being against Mormonism", he finds the suggestion that he is anti-Mormon "both offensive and inaccurate."^[1] Stephen Cannon elaborates,

It is also helpful to know that Mormons are a group of people united around a belief system. Therefore, to be "anti-Mormon" is to be against people. Christians who desire to communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Mormons are never to come against people of any stripe. Yes, evangelical Christians do have strong disagreements with Mormonism, but the argument is with a belief system and not a people. The LDS people are no better or no worse than any other group of people. Any dispute is to be a disagreement with the "ism", not the "Mormon".^[2]

69.171.160.187 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Is Mormonism Research Ministry "Anti-Mormon"?". MRM.org. Retrieved 2006-09-24.
^ Cannon, Stephen (2000). "Games Mormon People Play: The Strategies and Diversions of Latter-day Saint Apologists". PFO.org. Retrieved 2006-06-01.

Your references are not neutral ones, but I have changed my characterization to "hostile to Mormonism" since you object to the other term I previously used, and I don't want to argue about semantics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The associated press and denver post are neutral sources. Nice to see denialism is alive and well. 69.171.160.187 (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When asked whether he was aware of any other acts of vandalism by missionaries against religious property, Trotter said, "I'm going to have to decline comment." LDS church officials wrote in a statement that they were "deeply saddened" by the reported vandalism. And why did he refuse to answer the question -- was this desecration part of a broader Mormon ceremony or have other such acts of symbolic human sacrifice performed on the shrines of other faiths as part of some Arcane Mormon Ritual? 69.171.160.187 (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons why somebody might decline to answer such a question. For any of us to insert our own interpretations into an article violates Wikipedia's policy against original research; interpretations would only be appropriate here if they were attributable to a notable source. --GenericBob (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. It should also be noted that the original version is still in his userspace which goes against WP:FAKEARTICLE. Hot Stop ^UTC 08:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've read the article, delete. Article creator seems to be relying on OR for the allegations of human sacrifice; without that it's not remotely notable. --GenericBob (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A piece of idiocy which embarrassed the LDS. Not notable. --AJHingston (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator has made it clear that the creation of this article was motivated by a desire to promote his own point of view. If the article were about a notable subject, then we could clean up the point of view, remove the photographs (their copyright status is unclear, but it seems unlikely that the copyright owner has released them into the public domain), and turn it into a good article. Unfortunately, such a cleanup would be pointless, since the subject itself is not one that an encyclopedia would need an article about. Every day, all over the country, hundreds of acts of vandalism are committed. They are not all notable, and there is no sign that this one has any particular notability that would make it stand out from, for example, the teenagers who wrote their names all over the sidewalk at my workplace. I also recommend the immediate blocking of the creator if he finds it impossible to stop using Wikipedia to push his own point of view. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much of this article is copyright violation of AP and CNA stories conveniently collected here . NebY (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once FisherQueen had removed the parts not supported by the sources, what was left was a cut and paste copyvio. I have deleted both this version and the version in Justamanhere's userspace. Sorry about this - it's always annoying when an article gets deleted for something else part way through a discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Debate rendered moot by speedy deletion as copyvio. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2011 (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.

[1] "Is Mormonism Research Ministry "Anti-Mormon"?". MRM.org. Retrieved 2006-09-24.

[pfo-2] Cannon, Stephen (2000). "Games Mormon People Play: The Strategies and Diversions of Latter-day Saint Apologists". PFO.org. Retrieved 2006-06-01.

[1]

[2]