User talk:SorenSorensen

Speedy deletion of Spiritual Atheism
A tag has been placed on Spiritual Atheism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. ''Wikipedia is not a place to promote your products. If your website, published resources, etc., are notable and covered by third-party reliable sources, someone will create an article about it. Keep in mind that as the apparent owner of spiritualatheism.org, you represent a conflict of interest in creating a Wikipedia article about it - this is against WP policies. Please follow the links in this message for more information. Thank you.'' &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

COI
"My name is Soren Sorensen and I am the director of the Center for a Better World." Nuff said. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am wondering if you might be willing to tell me what I need to do in order to successfully create a page for "Spiritual Atheism" on Wikipedia that will not be deleted? &mdash; SorenSorensen (via e-mail)

I am surprised you ask. You did not contribute to the AfD discussion - although you would have been welcome to do so. Did you read it? As far as Wikipedia goes, do nothing. Just wait. Promote the concept of Spiritual Atheism in the real world. Once it becomes notable, you may be confident that someone with no COI will create an article about it here. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to add to this: Because there doesn't appear to be any significant third-party coverage of this topic, there's a good chance that the concept of "spiritual atheism" qualifies as a "fringe theory" and/or something that was completely made up by one person (yourself). I am not saying this is necessarily the case, but the point is that the concept doesn't seem to have 'caught on' in any shape or form in the mainstream - there is little to differentiate it from, say, a theory I may have that humans evolved from cats rather than primates.
 * My point is that when the topic becomes notable, whether it's been accepted or not in any scientific, religious or spiritual circles, it'll gain coverage and outside analysis that can then be used to compose an objective article on the topic. The requirement is that the article be on a notable subject, that the information be verifiable (and the bar is verifiability, not truth), and that it can be backed up by reliable sources.  Right now, it's missing those things, near as I can tell - the only materials I can find covering this particular topic are designed to promote your book, website and/or viewpoint, and that doesn't fit in with the policies here, I'm afraid.
 * I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask them here or on either of our Talk pages.  Thanks. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, to be fair, I should note that I am not questioning your authority on the subject, your ability to research, or the body of work you've prepared. On the contrary, I believe you are very highly qualified on the topic at hand, that you know more about it than virtually anyone, and that you would be the primary source of information on the topic.  And that, unfortunately, is where the problem lies: WP:RS points out that the vast majority of sources should be secondary in nature.  Your site constitutes a primary source, and thus can only be used in very limited circumstances. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)