Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc.


 * 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. - Bobet 00:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc.

 * — (View AfD)

vanity article created by a role account used by the organization the article is about. Does not satisfy WP:CORP for clubs, societies, and organizations. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Josh Parris #: 05:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edeans 07:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The organization's website "mamiwata.com" gets 6 Google Books hits and several unique Google hits. The full society name gets 1 unique Google hit that is not in reference to the book they published and none on Google books. No vote. — BrianSmithson 08:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentThe Mami Wata Healers Society of North America (formerly OATH) is not a vanity article. It is a serious, and legitmate, legal 501(c)3, non-profit African/Diaspora Religious organization. One of MWHS (OATH) achievements has been proactive in changing the way some branches of African Religions are classifed i.e., cults. It deserves the same protection, respect and rights as any legal public entity.--MWHS 13:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please present evidence that MWHS has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of MWHS itself, or that it is an English men's football club competing in Levels 1-10 of the English football league system. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not understand your response. Please clarify and provide Wikilinks for the criteria for Religious Organizations to be profiled.--MWHS 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did, in the nomination. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 10:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * nomination? Where is the link? Please, we are new to this particular appeal process, and do not understand your response. Again, please clarify and provide Wikilinks for the criteria for Religious Organizations to be profiled. Thank you.--MWHS 16:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this applies or not since it's just a proposed guideline at the moment: Notability (local churches and other religious congregations). Dmoon1 21:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We have noticed that Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) states that"References or links to their page should not describe it as "policy."  We also understand this to mean that there has not been any formal concensus established criteria/policies for religious "congregations/organizations, under both of the proposed criteria. We must ask what specific critera were you employing in your sudden proposal to delete our African Ancestral Religious Organization? Please assist us by stating the criteria justifying your proposal. We are able and willing to respond to your request if you can offer a more specific established policy that we can read, understand and respond to accordingly. Thank you for the link and we look forward to your response..--MWHS 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the main concern of the nominator and Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) is the guideline Notability (companies and corporations), especially the section Criteria for clubs, societies, and organizations, as well as the guideline Spam, particularly the section Advertisements masquerading as articles since the tone of Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. is not what one expects to find in an encyclopedia. Dmoon1 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest is also applicable and strongly advocates that members of organizations such as this not write articles about themselves; if you're notable, someone unaffiliated will eventually write an article about you. -- BrianSmithson 05:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your feedback. We have reviewed all of the wikilinks listed, and based on our understanding,could not find any of the suggested guidelines which would indicate to us that we are in violation. The very ancestral & religious nature of the Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc., precludes it from being a forum for WP:Spam,proselytizing or recruitment. It simply is not possible. Additionally in reading the suggested guidelines on the Conflict of interest page, we have avoided linking any Wikipedia  article to our religious corporation. Wat was also clear in reading each article was that all were simply  general guidelines as oppose to official policy, the article further stating that the most severest penalty which may be imposed in the  Conflict of interest is that it  "may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing  himself or his client."  Nonetheless, in consideration for your concerns, what we have done is to re-read the MWHS article, and can always agree that the article can be improved so as not to offer the appearance that our intention is to  recruit.  In that regard, we are open to anyone rewriting the article or submitting a link to an example of how a Religious organization is presented in encyclopedic form.Thank you again for your comments and feedback.--MWHS 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the main problems of the article is that it copies almost word-for-word the text found on the MWHS website. This brings into question the neutrality of the article, among other things. Dmoon1 19:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We have edited it to what we believe you are suggesting. Again, if you have a link to an example,we will review it and consider all suggestions for editing. Thanks.--MWHS 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete regardless of the debate above, the article fails to establish notability per Verifiability which is policy. Nuttah68 13:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Providing Reliable/Verifiable Sources

As a non-profit Religious entity, the MWHS can easily be verified through the following reliable sources: All of the above meets Verifiability policy/standards. Again, as Wiki administrators, if you can assist us by providing an example of how a Religious entity is presented in encyclopedic form we will certainly re-edit the article.--MWHS 23:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Georgia Secretary of State
 * United States Patent and Trademark Office see also on-line pdf doc pg. 1& 2
 * Columbia County see also on-line pdf doc pg. 3 for current licensure
 * Library of Congress. The MWHS is notable for petitioning to change the name of African Diaspora religions from cult to religion
 * Look, Viv, that only proves that your organization exists, it doesn't mean you're notable enough that we need an article about you. You see, we don't only delete articles for being in violation of policy, we delete them because we simply don't need them. Wikipedia is not a collection of every single thing that exists; this is an encyclopedia, and what deletion debates are about is whether the article merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. So far the consensus seems to be that your organization is hardly any more notable than the bowling alley across the street, and the "ancestral & religious nature" of your organization has nothing to do with it. It's just that there are a lot of bowling alleys in the world, and we simply don't need an article about each individual one. We have an article about bowling and that's enough. Likewise, there are a lot of religious organizations in the world, many of them claiming "ancestral" status, and your organization is no different. Sorry. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We believe that the MWHS has met all of the challenges presented to us to satisfy both Verifiability policy/standards,and notaility. Yet your response offers nothing other than a personal opinion as oppose to wikikpolicy of which we are not in violation. We also take offense to your disrespectful tone in addressing our organization founder and your derisive characterization of our religious organization. My name is Anagossii, the MWHS secretary whom you are corresponding. We have been respectful of you and it is policy that you extend the same. It is clear that you are determined to delete the article no matter what is presented. You may do so. However, in the meantime, we have made a copy of this transcript and will fax it to the Board of Directors at Wikipedia along with a letter of complaint. We believe it is important for them to obtain first hand knowledge of the tone, and spirit, and (what we believe is) abuse in which some of its admins and editors are responding. We must know directly from them if they (Board members) are in complicity or are quietly sanctioning such behavior.. Anagossii--MWHS 15:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think comparing a religious organization to a bowling alley is helpful to anyone. (A little more WP:CIVIL, please!) The Mami Wata article indicates the general subject of Mami Wata has significant notability in Africa. The difficulty is in coming up with evidence that this North American organization has attracted attention in its own right. It is perhaps unfair that non-Western religious movements, whether new or traditional, are somewhat handicapped in this respect. For what it's worth, the organization claims to constitute a denomination rather than a local church or congregation, so it's not clear that the Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) policy, which may require special evidence of local notability over and above that of the denomination, applies. Although it can be debated which policy is applicable, evidence of notability from one or more independent sources appears, fairly or not, to be an element underlying essentially all the variants of the notability policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful to check e.g. the University of Virginia's Religious Movements website, . --Shirahadasha 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Shirahadasha. You are correct MWHS does not proclaim to be a separate entity from its ancestral roots of the Mami Wata traditions in West Africa. Our society was aided in its very establishment by elders of Mami Wata from Togo, West Africa. Within our own religio-cultural milieu, we are very much notable for having established the tradition in North America since the suppression of African religions in America during slavery and Reconstruction. Additionally, within our organization we display the photo and credentials from Togo of our founder and other legal documents that are required by both our tradition and the state and local county.  The bigoted and disparaging manner in which our African Ancestral Religious Society and its members are treated here is indicative of its long history of racism, suppression and discrimination in the USA.  However, we are not deterred.  We understand this history and the motivation behind it, and will continue to contribute and challenge what some of these editors and admin have made self-evident.Apokassii--MWHS 15:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We are requesting that the naysayers demanding deletion of this article, provide tangible evidence and convincing argument that the MWHS is not deemed notable under Wiki notability policy in spite of the numerous Reliable sources provided. If sufficient Wiki policy and agrument cannot be provided within two days, we have no choice but to consider this issue settled, and will remove the AfD message. Anagossii --MWHS 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I've read the debate and am not convinced of notability.  Or else merge anything useful into the main Mami Wata article.--Wehwalt 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

comment: Your vote is acknowledged. However, again, we are requesting that the naysayers demanding deletion of this article, provide tangible evidence and convincing argument that the MWHS is not deemed notable under Wiki notability policy in spite of the numerous Reliable sources provided. This would prove more helpful to us. Anagossii --MWHS 19:38, 17 January 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.