Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Arnold Murray

Comments moved from main discussion
''I have moved these comments here because they fall outside the scope of the deletion disussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)''


 * Normally, I would agree that it needs watching and the article existed a long time without problems. Once the sanitizing teams come through, the article becomes misleading and worthless.  The deletion process here is being mocked a little by others pretending to delete it for legitimate reasons but the end result is correct.  Wikipedia had the same problems with notable people but their articles have to stay for this site to be considered even slighlty legitimate.Tss8071 (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the article for the proper reason. Stop pretending you are going through a process then gloss it over with some template of standard reasons.
 * I find it very humerous that sanitizing teams can vandalize wikipedia like this and your comment is, 'oh, keep your comments brief'. You make a mockery of the process and lend credibility that wikipedia only marginally works.Tss8071 (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point, you are being ridiculous. Look at these articles, Roy Gillaspie, Ray Wilkinson, Adele Arakawa,  Karla Cheatham Mosley, etc.  What is their notability?  Nothing really, one guy worked at a radio station in Raleigh, NC.  Most of the previous mentioned articles do not cite sources.  Using your reasoning, I am sure at least 1/4 to 1/3 of Wikipedia can be eliminated.


 * Delete the article and stop pretending you found a Wikipedia template violation.Tss8071 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument is totally invalid. You've made your !vote. If you have something else to contribute, and I'm not talking about ranting about Wikipedia in general, then contribute something new. But if you're going to repeat your invalid arguments, at least do it on the talk page. I will continue to move any irrelevant commentary off this discussion page. Please keep your comments relevant to the deletion discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By wikipedia allowing those types of articles in, unsourced, they have set a precedent. Had it been a few articles, that is different.  What you are doing is going back to what would be described as a 'technical foul' and declaring you made your case.  You remind me of the situation with two lawyers, where one shows the precedent in the law for a certain situation and the other lawyer shows one or two or three laws that he claims very specifically are being violated and therefore nullifys all precedent.Tss8071 (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a court of law or legal system. Once again, your argument is patently invalid. There are no laws or precedents on Wikipedia. Stop ranting about this. Thousands of articles get deleted on Wikipedia, constantly. At any given time, thousands of articles exist that should be deleted. You cannot cite them as precedent or any sort of case - this is not a court of law, and your logic is fundamentally flawed. Please stop insisting you are correct. Limit your comments to the matter at hand, and try to make valid arguments that comply with deletion policy and other policies/guidelines. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to reply to an argument, then do so, refrain from providing your own personal commentary at a meta-level and stop deleting and moving things around to your liking. You do not own this project.


 * Wikipedia has a set of rules and guidelines it follows. The level of enforcement of those rules has dropped due to wikipedia allowing so many unsourced articles in.  To choose one article and finding technical violations is hardly in keeping with precedent on this site.  In the context of that environment, listing technical violations hardly makes your case.Tss8071 (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments not relevant to the issue at hand belong on the talk page. If you do not want your comments moved, don't contribute them. Refer to this policy, which makes it clear that you should not contribute anything to this project that you do not want changed, moved, etc. Being non-notable is not a "technical violation." Please stop using this talk page to comment on the state of Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * > Comments not relevant to the issue at hand belong on the talk page. If you do not want your comments moved, don't contribute them.


 * Exactly, you do the same, keep your opinions about other users to yourself and check your facts before making statements like the other user was not blocked.Tss8071 (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * > Please stop using this talk page to comment on the state of Wikipedia.


 * If you want to respond to an argument then do so. No one is interested hearing your orders about what to do or not to do.  The fact that wikipedia has let many unsourced articles in and relaxed the level of enforcement relates to this discussion because it establishes a precedent.  A technical violation list does not make the case.65.87.185.73 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He was one of the sanatizing teams that cut down murray and other articles to one sentence. He could not write anything here because the admin banned him from editing.  Looks like the ban ended.Tss8071 (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was not a ban or block, the article was protected, which kept him and you from editing anonymously (you had been doing so until you registered this username). There is no such thing as a "sanatizing [sic] team" - he was removing unsourced information from a biography of a living person, which is not only standard practice, but one of the few absolute, hard-line policies. Please stop making commentary about other users on this page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong, check his talk page, he was blocked. You love to give out advice but appear not to follow it yourself.Tss8071 (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources and Article History
Since it seems to be a subject of debate, I have compile the following two lists. I examined the history end-to-end of the article to do so, and hope that this serves as a good reference for others in this debate.


 * External links


 * 1) Shepher'd Chapel website
 * 2) *Statement of Faith
 * 3) *Answers to Critics (briefly used as a source at one point)
 * 4) Arnold Murray and White Racism: Christian Identity
 * 5) Arnold Murray mistakenly predicts the end of the world to be in 1981
 * 6) CARM.org website
 * 7) The purpose of this site is to refute the lies spoken against Pastor Arnold Murray.
 * 8) *The Shepherd's Chapel VERSUS hate groups.
 * 9) Scripture Truth Challenges critics of the Murray's teachings.
 * 10) Profile of Shepherd's Chapel - From a "mainstream" evangelical Christian group
 * 11) Let Us Reason Ministries - Extensive anti-Murray article
 * 12) A place to discuss the validity of Shepherd's Chapel doctrine.
 * 13) Arnold Murray Gun Incident shown on "God Stuff" segment on "The Daily Show", a satire program
 * 14) The Unoffical Shepherd's Chapel Audio Archive
 * 15) A website written by a student of SCN.
 * 16) Oracles of God
 * 17) SC Revealed: Some Arnold Murray audios
 * 18) What do Murray & Thom Robb have in common?
 * 19) Students of Shepherd's Chapel website


 * References


 * 1) / Image:Arnold murray ministers license.jpg
 * 2) Shepherd's Chapel is registered as a non-profit under the "Soldiers of the Cross" name, in Arkansas. Verified at Arkansas Secretary of State Site: http://www.sosweb.state.ar.us/corps/search_all.php (Select "All Types"; Name: "Soldiers of the Cross"; RA: "Arnold B. Murray"; RA City: "Gravette"; RA State: "Arkansas" and search). [this item taken from the text verbatim]
 * 3) (similar how-to-search instructions given for this one)
 * 4)
 * 5) The Chosin Few
 * 6) / Kaplan, Jeffrey (2000). Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right. Rowman Altamira, 120. ISBN 0742503402.  - used only to verify that someone mentioned in passing in the article was, verfiably, a white supremacist
 * 7) Barkun, Michael (1997). Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement. UNC Press, 54. ISBN 0807846384. - ditto
 * 8) a list of audio tapes he has produced can be found in the Wilcox Collection of the University of Kansas.KU Library Catalog (Search for "Arnold Murray")

''Note that I do not endorse the text that comes with these links - they are clipped from a version of the article, with no particular consideration for which version. The text of most of these links may have changed throughout the versions. There were also tacit references to his sermons and "public records" in edit summaries, however, none were specific enough to be considered ''citation' of a source (allusion, perhaps). One version alludes to the Social Security Death Index, although again it is not cited.''


 * Significant (excluding non-vandalism/nonsense) versions in the page's history


 * starting point
 * expanded content, links added
 * expanded content, added "views," more links added
 * expanded content, lead split up better
 * lead expanded subsantially, "teachings" replaces "views"
 * shortened to exclude the lengthy, unsourced "teachings" section
 * expanded slightly
 * teachings re-added
 * significant growth in content
 * content trimmed/organized
 * teachings and other content cut
 * teachings re-added
 * tangential content (eg. etymology of "Arnold") removed, handgun section added
 * handgun section removed (content placed elsewhere)
 * teachings section removed
 * teachings section re-added
 * teachings expanded somewhat
 * history section expanded significantly
 * many new sections created, most entirely unsourced
 * even more sections created
 * and yes, even more are created
 * new sections removed per WP:V WP:RS etc
 * lots of reverting back and forth here, I won't include them as distinct versions
 * multiple issues identified, references section created
 * references trimmed per WP:RS
 * stubified (per WP:BLP, WP:V, etc)

I have compiled these as best I can and attempted to present them appropriately. I will be referring to them in comments I make regarding whether the article ever had reliable sources, or what kind of state the article has ever been in. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the above are links inserted by users which makes the article vandal-bait. You are unfairly applying wikipedia templates to this situation and creating a lot of unnecessary discussion.  Just delete the article.Tss8071 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are confused. Notability is not a template, it is a community standard. Articles that fail the relevant notability guidelines (in this case, biographies) are often subject to deletion because their subjects are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Likewise, verifiability is a policy - information on Wikipedia must be verifiable and in the case of biographies, the standards for reliable sources are very high. These are not "templates," they are the rules and guidelines for how we construct articles. When an article does not meet those standards, and a consensus exists to delete them, they are deleted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)