Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Movement (2nd nomination)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic Movement

Procedural renomination, with it semi-protected, following the mess of sockery at the first AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Movement). No vote. Proto::type 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nearly all the material in the article fails WP:V. As long as the article attempts to cover multiple organizations, this article will be subject to edit wars. I suggest a separate article be created for each individual organization that meets WP notability requirements, rather than trying to cover a "movement" that has not been written about in any reputable third-party source. —999 (Talk) 16:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point about edit-warring but I disagree about the response. Namely, given the proliferation of articles and AfDs, it might be better to put all the different movements in one article and give them each a section. There would be edit-warring (I don't want to be around) but hopefully fewer AfDs, which drain the broader community. I don't know, though; you may be right -- it's a muddle.--A. B. 17:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that most of the available material about the orgs will be from their web site. Such autobiographical web references are only allowed in articles about the org itself per WP:V. I've actually dealt with this same sort of thing before with respect to an article called the Golden Dawn tradition, which attempted to cover a number of small organizations, many of which had web-only sources and which were edit warring with each other. Splitting the article up and requiring that the articles be fully cited did eventually end the edit warring. -999 (Talk) 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to your experience on this one.--A. B. 17:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - "Delete" because notability still has not been shown. POV, vanity, etc can always be cleaned up but an article is either notable or not. I'll be happy to change my vote if notability is shown. "Weak" because I think collectively there must be something notable about the various Gnostic Movement groups that keep getting articles about their individually non-notable groups; these articles keep getting deleted amid controversy. It would be good to have one article that combines all these groups in one place (see my response to 999 above). Having said that, my thought that there's something notable about the groups collectively still has to be proven so in the meantime I'm voting to delete. If an acceptable Gnostic Movement article isn't doable, perhaps give them each group one bullet point each in the Samael Aun Weor article, assuming it's notable. --A. B. 17:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very limited ability to verify the article contents other then self sourcing. Since I have had it on my watchlist is constantly being edited by different groups within the movment to reflect their POV. These edits show that the sources being used here are self-serving --Trödel 18:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup/npov. POV isn't reason enough for a delete, IMHO. Honestly, the notability of the subject matter should matter lot more. As noted above, there's a lot of history to this article and the subject matter seems notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. To delete an article because its easier than actually putting in the work to make it a GOOD article is, in my opinion, a less-than-optimal choice. As a matter of full disclosure, this article was prodded a while back and I removed the prod for similiar reasons (POV not sufficient for deletion). However, I have no other investment in this article. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to clarify that I am not saying above they should be deleted because they violate NPOV; however, I am saying they should be deleted because the article does not have good references, is self-serving and independet references do not exist - see the talk page for some results of the research I did - I only found materials self published by the groups themselves. --Trödel 21:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trödel, that's useful information you found -- thanks for digging around and publishing it.--A. B. 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 999's argument. I also remember the outcome of the Golden Dawn tradition article. SynergeticMaggot 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 999's argument. I came in at the tail end of the Golden Dawn wars, but they seem to be over now. —Hanuman Das 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 999's argument. --Percevalles 11:58, 27 July 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.