Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PostMormon Community


 * 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 keep. John254 00:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

PostMormon Community

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is simply an advertisment for the postmormon website. There is only one news article about Ex-Mormon billboards, all other references about the group are from their own website. This should be deleted or at best merged with Ex-Mormon. Bytebear (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. While a lot of the fluff needs to be removed (again), there is more than enough significant coverage in reliable sources. There's the one you mentioned that is in the references section (Fox News AZ). Then there is plenty of notability assertion in the External Links section - Utah Statesman, New York Times, Dixie Sun... I think maybe the nominator didn't look at the EL section. Tan      39  23:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  Very Weak Keep - article needs rewriting to be less of an advertisement for the bulletin board/website, and needs better references (external links aren't references and shouldn't be used as such). The difference between a Postmormon and an Ex-Mormon should be pointed out in the introduction section of the article to help alleviate confusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you know that a need for rewriting and better referencing is not any sort of reason to delete. Any reason why your vote is "very weak"? Tan      39  14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware that rewriting isn't a reason for deleting an article, that's why I said keep at all. The reasons for the very weak is the fact I agree with the nominator that the article is basically a promotion for the website, that I can't find a real reason for the article not to be merged in someway with ex-mormon, or an appropriate article about ex-mormons, that I can't establish fully to my own satisfaction that even in some of the references that "postmormon" isn't just being used as another word for ex-mormon. My personal feeling is that the subject of a "post mormon/ex-mormon community" may be notable and maybe even properly verifiable but the article that results needs to be alot better than the one we are currently discussing. Oh and for transparentcy sake I'm what you'd call either postmormon or ex-mormon (in case it actually matters to the debate at hand).Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the New York Times article I link to above, three-fourths of the article is specifically about PostMormon.org. Same with some of those other external links I posted. Believe you me, I'm usually on the deletionist side of the fence for things like this, and I have no inherent interest in any of this subject. However, I think it's pretty clear that notability exists in a big way. Tan      39  15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? We've both said keep. I agreed that the subject is probably notable and even that it needs to be covered so I'm not sure what the "argument" is about. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose part of it is the article is titled and preports to be about the postmormon community yet claims that the website postmormon.org is the "main support", etc and goes on about that. I think I WANT an article about the postmormon/exmormon community and although I don't object to mentioning of the website in an article on that subject they shouldn't be as muddled as they are in this particular article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I frustrated you; I was not attempting to "argue" with you (or even to change your !vote, actually). I was merely trying to understand the rationale behind it; the "very weak" didn't match the rest of your statements. I'll bow out now. Tan      39  15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its okay. Somedays it seems like everythings an argument on here. I'm not always great at putting my thoughts across IRL much less when it is typed and the frustration comes more from not understanding the best way to put my thought processes down in order for other people to understand them more than from anything else. I suppose the best example I can give is the recent stuff about Wicca Rock and the associated articles. There was one I can't remember the name of that was titled in a way that led you (read me) to believe the article was about a new type of music and it turned out to be about a band/their business/ and a number of other things all at once and it made trying to discuss the policy and guideline side of things harder, which I think is the way this particular article comes across to me.Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I am not clear how large this organisation is, except that it is multi-national. A main section is well-referneced.  I have no doubt that the existence of the organisation is offensive to members of LDS church, but that is no reason to remove it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs to be dramatically rewritten, with more of an emphasis on the nonprofit group pushing the PostMormon concept. But there is no reason to smite it with deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (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.