Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorldVenture

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 12:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WorldVenture[edit]

Despite the POV issue, this article has not assessed notability or verifiability, and I doubt it could. Also, this seems a little spammy. The article is also copied almost word from word from the webpage, so copyright violations exist as well. --Адам12901 ^Talk 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be clearly notable. The reasons cited above are mostly reasons for improvement, not for deletion. Moreover the nominator is known for repeated ubnsubstantiated AfD nominations of churches - a month ago, he nominated e.g.St Mary's Cathedral Basilica, a 900 years old cathedral, or even Burnt Church First Nation, a band with "church" in its name. Although I recommended him three times that he can do better if he stays within the domain of his expertise, he seems to continue still in this way. Sigh.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I have done in the past with that is absolutely no reason for you to keep bringing this up. I have told you SEVERAL times the reasons for what I did, and I am getting quite sick of you bringing this up over and over again. If you have a problem with this, you are welcome to notify an administrator to take action, but I am not doing anything against any rules. I am doing this purely in good faith. Also, I don't see how copyright violations are "reasons for improvement" especially since it's taken very seriously on Wikipedia. --Адам12901 ^Talk 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would now concentrate on geography of Russia, for example, I will surely forget your past behavior soon. But if you continue in your AfD crusade against churches although you are clearly not expert in this field, to put it mildly, I must warn other editors. - Regarding copyvio and spam in articles about notable subjects, the solution is easy: stubify the article. I've done it and now its text does not violate any copyrights and is no more advert-like.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must tell you...again...I am not on a crusade, and I am getting sick of you saying that. Please stop! --Адам12901 ^Talk 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, in the last month you AfDed 111 articles. From these 111, 103 were church-related (I include the Burnt Church First Nation band here). From the 103 church-related articles, 21 articles (20%) were deleted as non-notable according to your suggestions, two are pending - and most of the rest was nothing more than annoyance for the fellow Wikipedians. Do you have a better word for such an activity?

Understand me, I am not against deletion of nn articles and I nominate many articles for deletion myself, including church-related ones. But the case must be reasonably clear and well researched - and therefore you should limit yourself to the areas of your expertise. I hope that you will be a great editor and I am trying to help you, not to "punish" you for your mistakes...--Ioannes Pragensis 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to count the number of articles that I speedily delete, churches would not be anywhere near that percentage. As a newpage editor, I view newly created pages. I found Worldventure, and did a redirect (after realising that speedy deletion wasn't right for it). I did not go on some sort of crusade looking for this article, I found it while doing what I usually do on Wikipedia - patrol newly created pages. I will expect you to stop bringing up past matters in future AfD articles, and to be mature about this. Again, if you have a problem with what I'm doing, notify an administrator. I am sick of your crap, and I am not going to discuss this with you any further. Thank you and have a good day. --Адам12901 ^Talk 20:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: I will happily stop it if you stop AfD church-related articles (except in clearly non-notable cases, of course; I have no objections if you delete a brand new church with ten members). Have a good day, too.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete this particular article provides no real encyclopedic information, and would be a good model for the sort of church-related articles we do certainly want to delete. The churches that do not merit deletion, we will I hope not delete them. DGG 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks, delete. ~ Flame vip e r 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I added bibliography and references proving that this is the first Conservative Baptist organization ever founded.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching Google Books for WorldVenture doesn't find a lot, but there are plenty trivial and not-so-trivial mentions of its older name, CBFMS, and too many gnews archive hits to make weeding the out the trivial, obits which mention it in passing, very easy. Seems to me that this meets WP:ORG (the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source) and WP:V. If it needs cleanup, clean it up, but it doesn't seem egregiously POV or spammy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the same reasoning as Angus McLellan. John Vandenberg 07:40, 12 January 2007 (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.