Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Wapnick


 * 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 of the debate was delete, does not meet WP:BIO. --Ezeu 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth Wapnick
Reason this article should be deleted:

This article has been determined to be noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy as discussed in it's Analysis for Deletion based on :


 * Comment Actually, it has yet to be deteremined whether this article is noncompliant with Wikipedia policies. That is the point of a deletion nomination: to get a consensus from other editors who together decide whether an article is noncompliant and deserves to be deleted. Wikipedia is not single handedly controlled by this nominating editor. -- Andrew Parodi 23:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR - Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.


 * WP:VER - Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.


 * WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links, rather than to use them as sources of information.


 * WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.


 * WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thoughts and analyses.

using guidelines:
 * WP:BIO - The subject of this article fails to meet criteria testing whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research.

and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 05:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Article seems to have a bit of vanity as well, evidenced by statements such as "the ever-growing popularity of ACIM seemed to know no bounds." Wapnick seems to be notable only for his role of editing segments of A Course In Miracles and heading Foundation for A Course In Miracles but not much for anything else, thus I suggest the article to be redirected/merged to Foundation for A Course In Miracles--TBC TaLk?!? 05:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is not vanity because it wasn't written by Kenneth Wapnick. Take a look at the page history and see who started this article. -- Andrew Parodi 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it seems it was written by a close friend of his, so it does fall under WP:VANITY. Also, after looking through the page history, it looks like that the page was manually moved, thus someone should add the article to the cut and paste move repair holding pen --TBC TaLk?!? 21:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Just a little background here. The editor in question who started this article is not in any way a "close friend" of Kenneth Wapnick's. He is a "student" of A Course In Miracles (which means that he reads the book), as well as a "student" of Kenneth Wapnick's (which means he reads books by Kenneth Wapnick, books about ACIM interpretation). To my knowledge, the two men have never even met.


 * Comment, he does seem to personally know Wapnick, as evidenced by this statement on the article's talk page --TBC TaLk?!? 04:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current writing style of the article needs to be improved. But in my mind, that calls for editing, not deletion. -- Andrew Parodi 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect to Foundation for A Course In Miracles per above. --Coredesat talk 09:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Foundation for A Course In Miracles per TBC. -- N  scheffey (T/C) 11:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I hope everyone is aware that Ste4k has a personal vendetta against all ACIM-related articles on Wikipedia. In addition to supporting the deletion attempt of the article Authorship of A Course in Miracles, this user has initiated deletion attempts of the following ACIM-related articles: William Thetford, Kenneth Wapnick, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, and Gary Renard. And on the main ACIM page, this editor will not accept anything, not even the official sites of Foundation for ACIM and Foundation for Inner Peace, as acceptable sources. Personal bias masked as attempt to uphold Wikipedia guidelines (all the while ignoring Wikipedia guidelines by trying to deprive Wikipedia of articles about a notable topic). -- Andrew Parodi 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just to inform fellow editors: it appears that the nomination of this page by Ste4k for deletion is a “bad faith” deletion attempt. Ste4k has recently submitted deletion nominations for all of the following A Course in Miracles-related articles: ACIM church movement, Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Attitudinal healing, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Community Miracles Center, Gary Renard, Kenneth Wapnick. And in the article Authorship of A Course in Miracles, Ste4k will not accept ANY websites as “verifiable” websites with regard to ACIM, including http://www.acim.org/ and http://www.facim.org/, both of which are the official websites of California-based non-profit organizations. This editor's deletion attempts are merely personal bias masquerading as adherence to Wikipedia policy. And it appears that this editor has a history with this kind of behavior. Please see: Articles for deletion/Big Brother Australia series 6 -- Andrew Parodi 07:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge (not that there's anything worth merging) and redirect to Foundation for A Course in Miracles per TBC. Indeed, WP:VAIN does not apply, and WP:No Hagiography is yet to be written. Still, it's completely unsourced and there's nothing in the article to suggest that the subject is any way important except through his connection to the ACIM foundation and book and he's already mentioned in both articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On reflection, and in view of Ste4k's comments later, I think delete is the way to go. As previously noted, nothing verifiable to merge that isn't already there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. Regardless of nom's motivation, viewed dispassionately this guy is nowhere near individually notable. ACIM-cruft. --- GWO
 * Comment Viewed dispassionately, he is viewed by many as THE most important lecturer on ACIM in the world. Of the three people who brought ACIM to the world -- Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Kenneth Wapnick -- he is the only remaining. -- Andrew Parodi 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't believe that anyone should be tampering with Articles for Deletion discussions. The act is contemptable, and makes the entire subject matter suspect. How do we know now what anyone has truly said? Please note here the matter I am referring to. I believe this to be an act of bad faith. Ste4k 11:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for finally using the word "believe". That is all I interjected into your above statements, that you believe this page should be deleted because.... That is hardly "tampering". And I did not understand that those comments were viewed as your own "personal" comments, as they are largely verbatim transcriptions of Wikipedia policy. Therefore, all I felt I was doing was copyediting Wikipedia policy which I felt was incorrectly displayed. My apologizies. And you fail to recognize that when you nominate more than half a dozen ACIM-related articles for deletion, you begin to look suspect. The only thing I could assume is that perhaps you are a conservative Christian who doesn't like ACIM. Thankfully, I've been enlightened to the fact that you have a history of behaving this way with articles. You simply don't understand that there are better ways to resolve content disputes than to nominate an article for deletion. -- Andrew Parodi 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with the cruft removed. I see no evidence of importance outside FACIM. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I find Ste4k's new argument persuasive, and now say delete without prejudice against later creation of a redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete He could be mentioned in ACIM article, but is not that notable to justify a separate article. JChap 20:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the Foundation for A Course In Miracles article. Yamaguchi先生 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He seems notable enough to me and I don't see how we can successfully merge all this into the already big Course in Miracle article. And I don't see how it can hurt to have them seperate. Shanes 08:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO. Could be mentioned at main ACIM article.--Isotope23 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, perhaps merge. --Pjacobi 19:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by nom There aren't any sources in any of the "Course in Miracles" category that have any biographical information on Wapnick. Merging this information without any references will compromise the integrity of the newer version of the article on the book. Any of the other superfluous information on Wapnick's biography (this article under consideration) is already present in the newer page and would be redundant in a merge. The picture from this article has already been merged to the newer article on the book. I'd like everyone to reconsider their votes here since many changes have occurred over the entire category. Thanks. Ste4k 15:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ste4k's comment and WP:BIO. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 17:09, 4 July 2006 (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.