Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Circle of Faith


 * 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. Core desat 05:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

International Circle of Faith

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. I have been unable to locate reliable sources suggesting notability of the organization or any of its individual members. This article was also created by a member of the organization, based on the username. Someguy1221 00:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't assert notability, COI as noted above, serves as soapbox. faithless   (speak)  00:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - WP:OR and WP:VSCA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep - and only weak because the article still needs work to clean it up. I think a large enough body of external references has been added now to make it a good idea to keep the article. However, a cleanup tag should be kept on this thing, as it'll still need a fair bit of TLC to improve further. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is no different that similar articles for other Christian denominations. There is certainly many refernces, links and the names read like the who's who of this groups particular segment of Christiandome. The fact that a member of the group contributed as a writer of the article does not take away from it's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopicof (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. The problem is that there is no evidence of notability, and the sources given are all primary sources, which do not help in establishing notability.  Someguy1221 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. There is a group of us working on this article. We are all working from the same sign in name on our office computer. We used other similar articles for a guideline. We are new to wikipedia, so it is a learning experience. We didn't realize we would receive critique so quickly. We have already and will continue to add notibility to the article. Your help and incite is much appreciated. GR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopicof (talk • contribs) 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Bishopicof admits in the above comment that the account is shared by more than one person. That comment was reported to WP:UAA. The account was indef blocked, as shared accounts are not allowed. Each person in the office/organization may create an individual account to be used only by that person. The IP address was not blocked, so there should be no difficulty creating those accounts. - Krakatoa  Katie  11:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: NN original research... - Rjd0060 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete COI and OR... toss in the NN as well. Jmlk  1  7  07:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Pure vanity soapboxing by the organisation Mayalld 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment From Wikipedia, "Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions." George Rodgers 2:01 November 2, 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not Pentecostal, I'm not previously familiar with the ICOF, but I don't see this as a "soapbox" for anything. Problems with point of view and neutrality are something one must be ever mindful of when one is writing about something one considers important.  Neutrality problems aside, if the ICOF is as broad as its website asserts, then it's a notable development in the history of the Pentecostal faith.  Historically, the individual Pentecostal churches have been vocal about being independent of any organization.  Thus, the idea of unification of churches from around the world is an unprecedented development.  I think that, if challenged, Bishopicof and other authors could come up with more sources from Christianity Today and other published sources.  Suggestion to authors-- quote more directly from the articles that you've cited, link to them if you can, since a major point raised by the deletion advocates is whether the ICOF is notable to persons outside of the Pentecostal faith.  Mandsford 12:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I am also not Pentecostal but I am of the Christian faith. The original comment was about notability.  Looks like this has been well addressed.  Whether or not someone connected with the denomination has collaborated the article is irrelevant.  On that basis all news organizations would be eleminated from credibility as their reporters work for them.  The point on sharing was obviously not something they were hiding.  It is evident that collaboration should be applauded in any article.  Seems like the author is learning how to list wikipedia style.  The list of people connected with the ICOF is impressive and notable.  My brief research shows that Mark Hanby and Teklemarian Gezahange (not sure the spelling is correct) are among the notables who have spoken at their conferences.  Both are notable in the Pentecostal movement and newsworthy in itself.  The later gentleman, Teklemarian, is the leader of a huge Pentecostal group (some estimate 2 million or more) in Ethiopia.  Articles I have read say the group was part of a huge split with another Pentecostal group a couple of years ago.  The group is called the Apostolic Church of Ethiopia and has by some counts 2 million members.  The ICOF has one of the Nigerian Presidential candidates as a alumni.  Not impressive in the US, but huge if you are a Nigerian.  Legitimacy does not seem to be the problem.  The author may be guilty of being religious, but there must be room on wikipedia for persons of faith just like there is room for faithless persons.  There is also no evidence other than comments here that this person is connected to the ICOF, so it may be a leap that this is vanity soapboxing.  I agree with Mandsford that neutrality should be aside.  This article seems no less opinionated than many on wikipedia.  I also agree with Mandsford that the article is very newsworthy as unification efforts of all Christian churches is noteworthy and newsworthy.  Keep the article. kitcarlson 6:39 1 November 2007 (UTC) — kitcarlson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am Pentecostal and one of the contributors to the orignal article. Keep it not because we submitted a good article but keep because it is a good and relevant article now that we have had some help from Faithlessthewonderboy, AllGlorytothehypotoad, and kitcarson. Thank you. George Rodgers 1:16 November 2, 2007 — George Rodgers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Strong Keep


 * Delete for lack of third party sourcing. There are a number of references listed, to be sure, but they almost all date from before the date of the founding of the movement, as thus refer to the Pentecostal movement in general. The two from later also seem to be general.  The rest of it is a presentation of their doctrine and a list of their members. no objection to the writing of an actual sourced article. DGG (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Me thinks thou protesteth too much! I appreciate those of you who have helped make this a notible article. At the same time I find other Wikipeidans to be disingenuous (perhaps sockpuppets?). I made no assertions to anything than what I am. I am new to Wikipedia. I also made no reference to being a member of this group (ICOF). All I said was I helped with the article. Without any notability, lots of inference have been made about me. This discussion would not pass the scritiny that that the article has recieved if given the same scritiny.
 * Keep

According to Wikipedia, "A single-purpose account is a user account which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles." I have made no inference that I am a professional in this or any other area. It may be that I only edit articles in this genre. However, I wonder at those who have come to this discussion with obvious agenda's. Some claiming to use the 'Kings English' yet seem unable to read the wikipedia directions for discussions.

"Many Wikipedians are active on a range of articles, while others edit primarily within a small area". - Wikipedia. This represents me, I am not at the level of editing lots of articles.

"It is sometimes the case that Wikipedians of both types promote set agendas by their edits within a particular interest." - Wikipedia. So, you have stated you agenda. Sockpuppets and all.

"Users are cautioned to assume good faith, and to recall that all new users must start off somewhere. Further, many people with expertise in a specific area quite reasonably make contributions within that area alone." - Wikipedia So, SHOW SOME GOOD FAITH, please. I had to start somewhere. I started where I have some expertise.

"There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts. They can even happen when a new user registers simply in order to start a particular article." - Wikipedia

So, bottom line, give me a break. These was never a reason to slur my the article. There are clear Wikipedia guidelines on how to discuss. Whether the article stays or is deleted is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is that I have learned a lot. I have learned there are good people on Wikipedia and I have learned there are some very self centered people with their own agendas. If the shoe fits... George Rodgers 1:59 November 4, 2007


 * Comment It isn't "your" article. Wikipedia articles are not owned by anybody! Mayalld 07:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment A couple of contributions to this discussion have been (appropriately) tagged as spa. It is entirely legitimate to do this, in order to draw the attention of the closing admin to this (the closing admin will doubtless review the contribution history of these users him/herself). On a few occasions now, this tagging has been removed from the discussion, in an apparent attempt to airbrush the apparent SPA nature of some accounts from the discussion. Whilst we can rely on the closing admin to notice this sharp practice, let those who are trying to manipulate the discussion be in no doubt that their actions are wrong. Mayalld 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment George Rodgers, when I read you comments I thought you were taking this all to personal. I thought you were off the mark when talking about sockpuppets but after seeing the responses followed by the personal attack by Mayalld, I must agree with you that all this seems a little too personal.

However, Mayalld is correct that the article belongs to Wikipedia now, assuming that it is not deleted and I think it would be an error to delete the article. It does need some more work but it certainly meets Wikipedia guidelines.

Personally, I would ignore Mayalld. His obvious personal attacks, his violation of published Wikipedia policies are certainly not what he was taugth in Scouting. Now he wants to claim that I have never edited outside of this topic.

By the way, George Rodgers, if the article is deleted then it is yours! kitcarlson —Preceding comment was added at 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, the article is still Wikipedia's even if it gets deleted, and will still be licensed under the GFDL.  It will just be invisible.  And Mayalld has not comitted any personal attacks or violated any policies.  Kit, you have not edited anything unrelated to ICOF, as I can plainly see from your contributions.  This statement is not meant to belittle or demean you in any way, shape, or form.  It is a statement of simple fact, one that any admin will recognize no matter the objections you pose.  You can help yourself by assuming a little good faith on behalf of the other contributors to this discussion.  Someguy1221 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for your opinion. It is a shame that Wikipedia does not print your opinion in place of their policies. Accusing an author of vanity soapboxing is contrary to published Wikipedia policy.

You have no idea what I have contributed to Wikipedia and frankly I did not ask for your opinion. Everyone has one. For the record (don't let me confuse you with the facts), I have edited at least 3 other topics just in November!

When you and Mayalld have your next meeting. A review would be good:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia's three principal content policies are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Since they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. Cite references from a reliable source, especially on controversial topics, and avoid conflicts of interest. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a vanity publisher, a web directory, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Content that would be appropriate in a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents, should instead be contributed to an appropriate Wikimedia sister project.
 * Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. Articles can be changed by anyone, and no individual owns any specific article. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Do not submit anything that infringes copyright, or that is licensed incompatibly with the GFDL.


 * Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus decision-making is an inherent part of the wiki process. Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, so consensus can change. The primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, anarchy or any other political system. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in testing for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion, and should be used with caution, if at all.


 * Wikipedia has a code of conduct. Act in good faith, and assume others are acting in good faith too. Be open and welcoming. Be polite and civil. Respect your fellow Wikipedians even if you disagree with them. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Avoid edit wars. Follow the three-revert rule. When a conflict arises, follow dispute resolution. And remember that there are 2,077,345 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss.


 * Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five principles outlined here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because perfection is a goal and not a requirement. As all previous versions of articles are kept, content won't be irrevocably destroyed by an editor's mistake. So don't worry about messing up.

[usertalk:kitcarlson|kitcarlson] 4:25 November 5 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitcarlson (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.