Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Armor of God Broadcast (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. I'm closing this early because the discussion has ceased to be productive. The primary writer, upoon recreating the article, did post a notice on my talk page asking me to review it, which I think is a clear example of his/her good faith. (I also closed the original AfD). Unfortunately, I didn't log in until today because I took a wikibreak for the holidays. There virtually unanimous opinion to delete, and the article has been userfied, so there is nothing further to be done here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Armor of God Broadcast[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Full Armor of God Broadcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article for apparently non-notable radio program, prod removed by subject-involved article creator, issues from previous AfD neither resolved nor apparently understood as regards notability. Dravecky (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing seems to have changed since the last time this was deleted. There is no real coverage from reliable independent sources to establish notability. Just because something is obviously real doesn't make it notable. Hopefully this won't turn into a side show like last time it got AfD'd. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get unpleasant about it.Armorbearer777 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my intention; I apologize if you took offense. My intention was to encourage that the canvassing that so marred the last nomination be avoided this time. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, no offense taken. I had nothing to do with the last issue. I had hoped to keep it simple this time, but that certainly didn't happen. It certainly seems like there is quite alot of opposition to this article, especially when other syndicated Christian radio shows have been allowed to remain with less refferences.Armorbearer777 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has declined significantly since the last deletion discussion. Right now, it's probably bad enough to be a speedy deletion candidate. Before, the article talked about how the broadcast aired on around 70 radio stations, which is significant enough to be considered as a national program. Now it airs on three radio stations, which is not significant. Very many radio stations air on iTunes and the internet, so that not a claim of notability. I've been asked by the contributor with a conflict of interest how the article can be saved. Right now, it can't be without a complete rewrite. I'll answer the question here. You need to get back to the basics - multiple independent reliable sources show notability. You need to find major publications like books, national magazines, newspapers which have articles focused on the topic. Having sources that are specific to the topic, like Christian metal radio magazines, work well. I know that they are hard to come by, since mainstream sources won't touch any Christian music topics. I'd guess that at least a few exist. Just because many Wikipedians won't recognize them by name doesn't make them invalid. I suggest that before you post an article in mainspace again, that you contact a veteran Wikipedian like myself to see if the article has a chance to not be deleted via Speedy Deletion criteria G4. This isn't even close. Royalbroil 12:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The show does air on more than the 7 stations listed, but in the 1st deletion nomination it was suggested that the number of radio stations and references to those program schedules were irrelevant. This article focused more on the 3 main terrestrial radio stations, referencing those listed on Wikipedia that all mention The Full Armor of God Broadcast. This show is internationally known in the area of Christian Metal. This fact can be established in and of itself by the notably interviews it has done with notable musicians (who would not do interviews with unknown programs) and the magazine coverage listed. Armorbearer777 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide your proof of the number of radio stations who air the program. It is very significant to me. I ask because I've been trying all along to get you to provide proof of meeting anything in WP:MUSIC (the notability standards for musicians). A case might be able to be made to apply that standard to the radio program. Royalbroil 19:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided 10 references to radio station program schedules that list the show as being aired, but they were removed. I was than told to give citations to verify radio syndication. I was ordered not to re-post references to radio stations airing the show. I was told that they are insignificant to and only establish the "existance of the show" and not notability. I was also told that they were advertisments. I referenced mp3 content that verified notable interviews, but those too were removed. I refferenced 3 magazine ads in notable Christian Metal & Motorcycle Magazines and those were removed. I am celarly in over my head here. This is a wirlwind of subjective opinion and vague policy references. I appreciate your tryingto help, put if I am in conflict of interest by being an intern of the show, than I will drop out of this debate. Please view my persoanly page for the full list of references before they were removed. Maybe something there might help. Armorbearer777 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added 3 magazine coverage references in compliance to request and what should be considered for all reasonable purposes sufficiant enough notable references including audio media references which applies to WikiProject Radio criteria and according to Wikipedia Policy. Wiki Policy clearly states that notability does not equal fame. So the fact that this show is not the Haward Stern Show or Bob & Tom, would seem like a mute point. This program is popular and notable enough in it's area and is worthy of modest mention on Wikipedia. The approach in writing this article was to keep the information simple and notably referenced. I believe this was done sufficiently. I look forward to a fair and impartial decision from the designated Wikipedia admin. Thank you all very much and Happy New Year! Armorbearer777 (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to understand how Wikipedians look at the topic by playing the devil's advocate: anyone can buy an ad in a magazine, so this doesn't prove anything. The same comment would apply if you bought an article piece in a promotional magazine. We're looking for a professional magazine, not related to the radio program, who on their own fruition wrote an article about the radio program - just because they wanted to. Well-known ones in the U.S. Contemporary Christian music area are Jesus Freak Hideout, CCM magazine, and on rare occasions Billboard (magazine). Good luck. Royalbroil 14:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Armorbearer777 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of the references added reference advertisements. Simply no notability for an encyclopedia and the obvious COI is an issue here. Personally I would CSD. Mjpresson (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I removed references that absolutely did not support statements. I checked them thoroughly they just advertise and offer mp3 downloads. Mjpresson (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reference must SUPPORT the statement not merely prove that these stations and websites exist. The subject was not mentioned on the pages referenced. I seem to be the only editor concerned about COI in reference to username and subject.Mjpresson (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share your conflict of interest concerns pertaining to Armorbearer777. He/she must be the webmaster since this edit includes some scans of advertisements which had been on their official website in response to this discussion. Royalbroil 19:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am admittedly and intern of Full Armor of God Ministries. I didn't realize that this would be a conflict of interest? Since there does not seem to be much supprot for this program on wikipedia, I shall withdraw my efforts. I regret not representing this significant [[Christian Metal] counter culture radio program better than I have. I appologize for wasting everyones time. Armorbearer777 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No basic change from last time, no evidence of notability by our criteria. The article's creator is clearly a supporter but there is no evidence for more than that so far as I know. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentWell, I was clearly wrong, there is a definite COI. Which does explain some things but of course doesn't affect my thoughts about the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am an intern of Full Armor of God Minsitries and do care about The Full Armor of God Broadcast, I have also joined WikiProject Radio for the advancement of radio broadcasting on Wikipedia. I believe that to seek to verify The Full Armor of God Broadcast in this case also serves the purposes of advancement of WikiProject Radio. I do not believe my integrity to be in question. Armorbearer777 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe this broadcast could be capable of being kept on wikipedia, but there is the problem of reliable sources and how it does have a lack of such sources. In its current state, it probably isn't suitable to be kept, but there is somewhat of a chance for it to be notable. I don't know how much of a chance, but I don't want to vote "delete" just yet. Maybe I'll check out the circumstances later and put in an official vote. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 19:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to above comment: "Checking out the circumstances later" is definitely recommended at the very least. Mjpresson (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. At the risk of being out of order, I am one of many others who became clean & sober thanks to this radio ministry, that is why i feel so passionate about seeing it acknowledged on wikipedia. Please don't hold that against the program. Armorbearer777 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a nationally-syndicated radio program, my natural inclination is to lean towards keeping the article but without the independent media coverage required by Wikipedia this (or any other radio show) article can't pass the notability test. Surely some magazines or periodicals have written up the program? As an intern, of anybody here you'd have the greatest access to the show's own archives of such material, if it exists. - Dravecky (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any such magazine artcles, perhaps Teen Challenge might have some, I will look into it ASAP. But for now, as one last ditch effort to establish some small level of notability to The Full Armor of God Broadcast I have linked article to a few short mp3 sound clips of notable guests who have endorsed the show verbally including: Ryan Clark of Demon Hunter, Nick Hipa of As I Lay Dying, Brian HEAD Welch (formerly) of Korn, Kevin Young of Disciple and Kirk Cameron of Way of the Master Ministies. Though these sound clips are hosted by The Full Armor of God Broadcast's website, unless the program is going to be accused of falsification of these clips entirely (which certainly is NOT the case), these should establish at least some slight basis of notability, if only on a small scale. Please consider these audio clips as "self published web content" to establish notability enough to keep this modest article on wikipedia. Otherwise, I will keep working on it in the sandbox and see if any magazine articles exisit. If they do, they are more likely to be similar to local ministry bulletins and not major publications as requested. Lastly, please do not discount the listening audience of XYZ Radio which serves the iPhone, Wii, DS, PS3 and PSP. This is a QUICKLY GROWING medium of broadcasting and reaches many listeners! Thank you all for you time! Please review NEW audio references as "self published web content" according to wikipedia policy (hopefully)... Please view article before someone goes and pulles all of them off.. lolArmorbearer777 (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those audio clips are called "promos" and are a form of commercial exchange ("you endorse my album and I'll endorse your radio show"), they're not independent 3rd party comment from a reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a very subjective statement that I cannot find in wikipedia policy. Can you show me where that is written please? It seems that this preceeding has already been decided.Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, WP:RS doesn't specify that a radio program's own "promos" (actually they're called "liners" in the trade) can't be used to base an article on, but it does define the standards that a reliable source must meet. You may want to get opinions from the wider Wikipedia community at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TY! Armorbearer777 (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A program carried on just seven stations does not meet notability standards. No independent, reliable sources are cited. The author admits to a conflict of interest, and his edit history tends to indicate his is a single-purpose account focused solely on promoting the program on Wikipedia, bordering on spam. This is pretty clear-cut to me. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you are going to WLRY, WCLH, WTGO and XXXChruch wikipages and removing the Full Armor of God Broadcast? Armorbearer777 (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because they reference a program that is clearly not notable by Wikipedia standards, and their inclusion is a backhanded attempt at self-promotion. It is a commonly-seen tactic here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those refernces have been on those pages for over a year and I did not put them there. All I did was link them to this NEW Full Armor of God Broadcast atricle. Nothing backhanded, I assure you. Please give the benefit of the doubt, I mean no harm. Armorbearer777 (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reference this Wikipedia policy you are quoting that lists the number of radio stations that a radio show must be aired on to be considered in syndication? This seems subjective. This inquisition is begining to resemble more of a piranha feeding frenzy or a public handing than a debate on ploicy, I think it is clearly time that I bow out. Obviously Wikipedia matters are best left to more dedicated Wikipdians. I conceed the issue. Thank God that Wikipedia juristition ends at Wikipedia. Armorbearer777 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a member of Wikiproject Radio I'd insist on WP:RS: specifically coverage by 3rd party sources independent of the subject which are other than program listings. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess that just about does it. No dice.. Full Armor of God Broadcast on Wikipedia. Full Stop... Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeilding to deletion proccess I will keep the article on my personal user page and keep trying to improve it. I should have worked on it more before trying to post it. My BAD! Live and learn.. Any advice is welcome. Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. You can create a sandbox within your user space to work on the article and get it into a better condition. I use a a couple of sandboxes myself to do work on projects that aren't yet ready to be "unveiled". If you have any questions about it after discussion here closes feel free to hit me up on my talk page.TomPointTwo (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But remember: The best-written article in the world will not help a subject that is not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are users going to all the wikipages of the radio stations that do air the show and removing any and all mention of The Full Armor of God Broadcast?? If the show is SO UN-NOTIBLE, why do these radio stations all play the show? Doesn't wikipedia policy also state that "Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." So just because The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not a household name does NOT make it un-notible. It is very widely known in the Christian Metal counter culture and should be notible enough to have a modest mention on wikipedia. Many here seem to be on a misson to have this program completey blotted out from any mention at all. Why is that? Why is ti SO BLOODY important that The Full Armor of God Broadcast not be mentioned on wikipedia? I swear, have other radio shows like MAD Christian Radio Show recieved such opposition? Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention MAD Christian Radio Show with the intention of having it's certibility attacked now. That is a good show, don't delete that page too now,, that is not what I wanted to happen at all. Good LordArmorbearer777 (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never, intenionally "mirrored" anything. I was just trying to work the article out there in the hopes of getting it right. I only removed the additional tag. Does there have to be more than one? Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to comment I think the user removed the userpage templates? I replaced one on both userpage and talk page which mirror the deletions and appear as articles. There is a degree of disruption here, I believe. Mjpresson (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The user keeps removing the userpage template from the article on his userpage so it appears as an article. I have replaced it a 3rd time. Mjpresson (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOT TRUE!! You keep putting additional user templates on my persoanl page. I only removed the additional ones. I do not need more than one. It doesn't seem like you will be happy until you completely drive me off of wikipedia!Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Actually, your resistance and disruption are gaining you a negative history. It's not anyone's fault but your own. You continue to insist on using this site according to your wishes with disregard to years-established policies that work. Mjpresson (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a user subpage sandbox and transferred the article there, problem solved. Let's stay on topic, this is an AfD. Armorbearer777, you can reach your new sandbox from your userpage. If you have any questions hit me up on my talk page. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for that! I wasn't sure if I had that right. I though the user page was a sandbox. Sorry for the mix up.Armorbearer777 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely true. I added it originally as the mildest, least disruptive possible remedy towards solving WP:UP#COPIES (aka WP:FAKEARTICLE) until more specific corrective action could be taken, preferably by the user. I'm trying to keep the drama level at a minimum. - Dravecky (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary Comment
1) I totally conceed to deletion proccess (barring a miracle of God that it should avoid deletion).
2) I realize that I have made several mistakes with this article, most of all posting it before it could be approved by WikiProject Radio and or WikiProject Christian Music members.
3) I completely appoloize to all wikipedians that my actions may have offended. It was certainly not my intension to create any controvercy that would fly in the face of this illustious encyclopdia. Wikipedia has made history in so many ways but what has always been one of the best things about it is being the first encyclopdia of it's kind by being the great equalizer and allowing the accomplishemnts of "The Common Person" to be acknowledged along with the accomplishments of the "Giants" of our world. Bravo to Wikipedia when it wrote in it's policy "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability".
4) I will continue to work on this article only in my personal sandbox as I become more involved with WikiProject Radio & WikiProject Christian Music as a new member. I will try again to submit The Full Armor of God Broadcast article only after being advised to do so by one of the many well seasoned Wikipedians who have offered to help this article.
Thank You Armorbearer777 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final question about The Full Armor of God Broadcast

- In regard to the notable artist liners on mp3 used to try and establish notability of the show, how does the following wikipedia policy apply? If at all..

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Shortcut

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Couldn't these artist mp3 liners, along with the other references be eneough to verify low importance notablitiy in it's musical realm of Christian Metal? Please note, it is not the intension of this writer or the article to present The Full Armor of God Broadcast as something it isn't. It is not Focus on the Family or 20 Count Down Magazine. But it is exactly what it is? A significant Christian Metal syndicated broadcast of it's Christian Metal counter culture. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are into Christian Metal you have heard of this show. The 4 sentences on this article are referenced with 23 decent references in internet and low power fm radio. It doesn't make the show as popular as Rush Limbaugh, but this type of show is not the kind of show that could get coporate syndication. However it does manage to get around inspite of that and the very fact that it has gotten as much notability as it has in Christian Heavy Music Scene, is exactly what makes it worthy of modest mention on wikipedia. Perhaps everyone might consider adding it to either Christian Radio or maybe Christian Metal? Please consider changing your vote. This my absolute closing statement. Please reconsider and allow this modest article to remain. until next time TY all for your time Armorbearer777 (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Primary sources can be used for information, but should not be used to establish notability. For example, the "About Us" section of an organization's website can be referenced to establish founding dates, address, etc., but should not be used to make a notability claim. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 10:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Note: Now this editor has added six references that cause your computer to automatically download a file when you click on the reference. This needs to be stopped and this article promotion needs to be put to rest today. Does this also need WP:ANI?Mjpresson (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEBArmorbearer777 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Non-notable self-published band.Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article on a band, it is a radio show. Armorbearer777 (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Note

WP:N Clearifies that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic" and that "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

WP:WEB Clearifies "Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content"

WP:RS goes on to state "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Given the information listed form Wikipedia policy, could The Full Armor of God Broadcast achieve low importance notability in the area of Christian Metal and /or Christian Radio with its "Self-published or questionable sources or Web content" in the mp3 audio clips of notable guest liners, it's refernces to it's FM, LP and Internet Radio affiliate listings and references form other bands on notable music websites?

The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not a household corporate radio name such as "Bob & Tom", but within it's limited genre of Christian Metal and/or Christian radio wouldn't the current refernces be sufficient enough sources to establish a Start Class Low/Mid Importance article?Armorbearer777 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Metal maybe the more suitable choice. Christian Radio has declined on the merge. But I will pray and keep my fingers crossed for a something good to happen. This couldn't get any worse! lol Armorbearer777 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to add it as a paragraph on the Christian Metal page. It seems to be a good fit there if it's going to be deleted as an article. I would like to see the number of references reduced though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Let me know what references to remove. Thank you! Armorbearer777 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problems with a mention in Christian Metal, but not Christian radio, as that generally refers to traditional radio broadcasts and not webcasting, and the program simply isn't carried on enough stations (yet). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, given the exceedingly poor sources, about all you could accurately include is something along the lines of "Several stations list Full Armor of God Broadcast in their program schedules". - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that's a problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have the same opinion as I had during the last debate: that this has yet to pass our notability guidelines. Hopefully this debate won't be marred by canvassing like the previious. ThemFromSpace 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while moving the article to user space does resolve some of the problems (allowing the creator to work on sourcing and to properly establish notability), I have to raise a more fundamental issue... should that editor be editing this article in the first place?... Armorbearer777 has a clear conflict of interest. I am not sure that an intern for a broadcast company should be writing articles about that company's broadcasts? Blueboar (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on an article that you are involved in IRL can be a conflict of interest but it is not forbidden. As long as the editor understands the policies and guidelines (as this one now seems to) then what was once a conflicted or biased editor can instead become an asset. Much of the constructive work done on military, school and political articles is done by editors that are actively involved in the article's subject in real life. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on this topic. Having any company employee write an article, provided that it doesn't violate Wikipedia's policies on SPAM and writing articles that read like ads, is a great opportunity to get first-hand information on the subject. Is there a guideline that expressly prohibits this sort of thing? If there is, I think we need to apply it uniformly across the site. I know that my former employee had several people from marketing and customer support update articles on the company's behalf. I'm sure it's common practice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy against editing article whose subject you are involved in. The conflict of interest guideline covers specific behaviors that are inappropriate, mainly using wikipedia as a vessel of self-promotion. In other words the guideline only flat out rejects behaviors that are already disallowed by other, actual, policies. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...a great opportunity to get first-hand information on the subject. Is there a guideline that expressly prohibits this sort of thing?"... Yes, there is. In fact we have a core policy that expressly prohibits "this sort of thing"... see WP:No original research. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe his question was framed in the context of things that would otherwise be sound contributions. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to address the COI earlier in this debate yet my comments weren't addressed. That and the fact that this editor contributes primarily to this article and the AfD of it are as significant as its lack of notability. Mjpresson (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not an elaborate mass marketing conspiracy or something. Nor is this article some underhanded promotional scheme. It is a non-profit broadcast that is totally free to syndicate or download. It does not charge for public service announcements to be aired, nor does it solicit donations on the broadcast. It is operated by Full Armor of God Ministries, which is a non-501c3 privately funded Christian ministry. The ONLY things that The Full Armor of God Broadcast is known to "promote" on the programs is its religious commitment to the "Armor of God" form the Holy Bible, drug/Alchohol abuse rehabilitation from teen Challenge, internet porn addiction recovery from XXX Church and prayer for spiritual issues via the ministry's prayer line. Armorbearer777 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people here have assumed good faith regarding your intentions, even though COI is a likely possibility given your unusual persistence and your ministry's stated mission to get attention for its message by any means: ("Full Armor Of God Ministries are commited to spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our methods are viewed by some to be extreme, however we are commited to our vision and target audience and we will not waiver in our reservation. This ministry is prepared to go to the"EXTREME" to reach those that we are called to reach, with the message of God's love.") I don't doubt the ministry does good works and deserves attention for it. But if that's all you're on Wikipedia to advance, then you'll find some rough going here. Why not, as others have suggested, help out on other articles unrelated to Christian metal and get your feet wet helping to build the encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteand salt the article. Armorbearer777 is blatantly violating WP:COI and WP:ADVERT as he is clearly non-neutral on the topic and unable to write in a fully neutrally about it. The broadcast is not any more notable than it was the last time the article was created. TomPointTwo, you make an interesting point, however in this case, this is not just an matter of someone being interested in a local interest or a heavily active and well-experienced editor making careful neutral edits to an article about an organization they are associated with (for example, my adding well sourced history to some of the A&M state agency articles), but someone whose job may be engaging in paid editing (even if the internship is unpaid) by his employer. If Armorbearer777 truly understands the policies and guidelines that have been pointed out to him, he will voluntarily tag his copies for deletion, and accept that if this broadcast ever becomes notable, someone else will create the article is not involved in it and that he should not edit it anymore. However, as he is cross-posting parts of his arguments all over the place, I'd say he really isn't understanding it as much as some think. And yes, policy does prohibit this sort of thing. Wikipedia is WP:NOT for advertising and creating notability, it violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is determinted that I am in any "conflict of interest" by writing this article while being an (un-paid) volunteer intern with Full Armor of God ministries, than I will completely yield the issue. otherwise, I am beginning to view Mjpresson's very agressive strong badgering both here, on other articles and even on my user page as completely unwarrented. Furthermore I would assert that if there is any "canvassing" going on in this debate, it is certainly NOT on my end! Armorbearer777 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it personally or get discouraged. While this is all new to you it's not for many experienced editors. Over time many regulars here begin to feel like they're broken records, harping on the same thing over and over again and it can make them a little grouchy or short with new people. If you like it here then look around and read some policies and look through edit histories and see how things are done on wikipedia. Maybe request to be adopted by another editor. Then find another topic you're interested (and less personally involved) in and do some work there. Then when you're a little more rounded consider revisiting this topic with a new, more seasoned set of eyes. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I may be new to wikipedia, but not new to life. I know when I am being harrassed and Mjpresson is definately on a mission to follow me everywhere and harrass me. I wasn't even working on the Full Armor of God Broadcast article and he has been on my butt constantly. I hope I use warning properly. He left me no choice. Armorbearer777 (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(calm response) That user is speaking of me removing citations to blogs and advertisements, that's all. This is getting old and he's putting fake "you're blocked" templates on my talkpage now. Mjpresson (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment This AfD has spiraled out of control and discussion has out ran the scope of this venue. The only editor opposing deletion has concerned his initial position. I do not foresee there being any significant shift to reestablish this article in the criteria for inclusion and all the pertinent material has been saved to a user space for future work. Barring any objections I'm going to request this AfD be closed somewhat early to avoid any further disruption and to contain the reach of a disputes that have transcended this discussion. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Listing of stations and syndication is not likely to be enough to establish notability. Citing advertising won't, either, as it has been pointed out, anyone can buy an ad. Listing the bands that the program covered may be of interest to some, but it doesn't hold value toward establishing notability. As many others have expressed, what you really would need is coverage in independent reliable sources. For instance, if I wanted to write about a media organization such as a magazine, I'd find references to that magazine in other sources (as in this article), rather than list the cover of every issue (like someone does in this one). Another example: While researching this tv network I found an ad listing programs aired. But it's not the programming that makes the network notable per Wikipedia, per se (some exceptions may be argued), it's the off-network coverage.
So, with all this in mind, I searched several Gale Group databases (newspapers, magazines) looking for coverage. Alas, with no results. Which doesn't bode well. What's that old quote about a "hill of beans"? However, you might be able to find some play at non-Wikipedia "Christian music wikis". Dan, the CowMan (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am content with the oppertunity for the article being rewritten and merged with Christian Metal. I don't object to the closing of the discussion. Armorbearer777 (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without Userfy due to potential COI issue on this article. Comment to author: whatever you write about this subject, it would be subject to COI issues and has little chance to survive. If it's truly notable, someone else would write an article on it, or at least make significant contributions to it. There must be a reason after this lengthy discussion, very little support was gathered (btw, I also failed to establish its notability myself - lacking ghits apart from myspace, facebook and various profile templates). Your contribution to Wikipedia is appreciated, but try work on a different subject. :) Blodance (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insurmountable COI concerns have prevented NPOV from prevailing during the notability discussion. Let it die, and when (if) the program has grown, let someone else who is not involved create the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not going anywhere. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 12:47, 30 December 2009 (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/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137863627"