Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gnostic Movement Incorporated


 * 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 Speedy deleted per CSD A8. Xoloz 17:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Gnostic Movement Incorporated
violates WP:NOR and also most of the article is a copyvio (cut and paste from ) -999 (Talk) 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per my nom. I didn't discover the copyvio until I'd already created this AfD. Therefore I'll let an admin decide whether to speedy and perhaps then stubify... -999 (Talk) 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you give specifics? Article should not be speedy deleted without some evidence. Thanks, --A. B. 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, Don't forget to notify author when nominating for AfD -- see Template:AfD footer It's not mandatory ,but as WP:AFD notes, "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." . I'll do it this time. Not doing this can make the nominator look sneaky or POV, even if they're not. --A. B. 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per copyvio tag and 999's nom. SynergeticMaggot 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- in addition to WP:NOR, also fails notability, neutral POV, what Wikipedia is not (i.e., not a soapbox), verifiability and possibly vanity standard (see WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NN, WP:V, WP:VAIN). Fix each of these problems and use reliable sources (WP:RS) -- I'll be happy to switch my recommendation to "keep". I don't have a personal POV on Gnosticism-related articles (does that make me agnostic on gnosticism?)--A. B. 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CV, copyright problems are not grounds for speedy deletion except in narrowly defined situations; I suspect this article does not meet those requirements. See Copyright problems (the highlighted text near the top of the section) for specifics.--A. B. 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it fits the criteria. It is cut and pasted from a .com, the page has a clear copyright notice, and the article is less than 48 hours old. What else is needed? See also the site's terms of use, which clearly state the material may not be posted elsewhere. I'm going to speedy... -999 (Talk) 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A .com no longer always means "commercial". From the article, .com:
 * "Often, noncommercial sites such as those of nonprofit organizations, governments, and so on will use .com addresses, which some find to be contrary to the domain's original purpose. A .org, .gov, or other more specific TLD might be more appropriate for such sites."
 * See www.tva.com, (U.S. federal agency) and www.ordotempliorientalis.com for just two examples.
 * SynergeticMaggot and 999, you are not disinterested parties when it comes to editing gnosticism-related articles. From the perspective of an outsider, pushing for the speedy deletion of this article (as well as, for 999, a pattern of not notifying authors of articles nominated for deletion) may begin to look like POV-pushing, an attempt to bypass the more deliberative process of AfD and even bad faith (if there's enough of it). I continue to believe this article should be deleted if it's not improved this week, but I will fiercely oppose speeding up the process.--A. B. 17:55, 20 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.