Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Generation of Youth for Christ

Let's continue the discussion on this talk page. It allows for new sections. The discussion is getting lengthy and needs the "new section" feature. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Let the Rescue Attempt Begin
Regarding the article: Generation of Youth for Christ, I have been vacillating between the two options, merge or try to maintain a separate article. I have put considerable history information in the 21st Century section on the SDA history article. But, this has made it unbalanced because little has been written about the 21st Century. Much can be written but so far there is little. Hrfan has shown these weaknesses quite effectively. He has also inadvertantly taught me a refreshing WP policy called Ignore all the rules. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe the GYC story and its development helps add to, or improve, Wikipedia. Your kindly counsel has been, and is, appreciated. Also, a few other editors have expressed an interest in a GYC article rescue. "An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content." I plan to include this analysis on the talk pages related to this article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, IAR does not trump the notability requirements. LHM 05:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We need to address the complexity of notability requirements. The issue is bigger than this one article. It covers many articles. Perhaps it has already been discussed somewhere. The SDA, Adventist, articles on Wikipedia present a unique problem. I will address this in a new section. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, because "ignore all rules" is actually secret Wikipedia code for "ignore all rules except one particular guideline". lol. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability and Third Party Sources on Adventist Articles
This is a summary of the issues presented by DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Third-party sources begins, "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is independent of the subject being covered."

Many Adventist publications such as the Adventist Review and various regional pubications have long-standing reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Are these publications independent of the GYC? Yes and No.

Yes. The GYC is considered an independent ministry. Independent ministries are independent from Adventist control. If the independent ministry considers itself a supportive ministry, it behaves as though it is an Adventist entity. Technically, for example, the Adventist Review is independent from GYC. But, because GYC is a supportive independent ministry, the independence is difficult to detect. Since WP rules are really guidelines, this poses an interesting gray area for deliberations.

No. At the present time the independent ministry GYC and the official SDA Church are supportive of each other. This poses a conflict of interest, it seems. Note this from the WP Third Party page "When there is a potential conflict of interest, identifying the connection between the source and topic is important, such as by saying "A study by X found that Y." Rather than excluding such non-independent sources from a page, it is often best to include them, with mention of how the source is connected to someone with an interest in the topic."

GYC is an article with very few third-party sources

If we consider Spectrum and Adventist Today to be third-party sources, then the GYC article has third-party sourced material. Both Spectrum and Adventist Today have a history of independence from the official SDA church; so much so that they have been like a thorn in the side of the official church. If we look further away from the Adventist world, there is very little third party reporting going on regardings GYC. This makes it possible for editors to claim there are no third party sources for the article.

The WP Third Party page says this "An article without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance. Consider asking for help with sources at the article's talk page, or at the relevant WikiProject."

GYC is not an article without third-party sources. However, it needs more, and preferably without any Adventist connection whatsoever.

Should the GYC article be merged with some other article?

No. In my opinion, of course. I have actually considered this the best course and have added information to the SDA History article. But, I found that the information that seemed important for WP readers involved too much and made the section with too much weight on GYC. See WP Weight discussion. One editor, Hrafn, pointed this out. There have been no other comments on this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, the ARS thinks EVERY article should be kept. They don't represent a majority of WP editors, I wouldn't think. And, yes, as of now, GYFC is devoid of third-party sourcing. With that said, nothing I write is going to convince you, or any other SDA partisan, that this article should be merged and redirected, since you all keep insisting that SDA-backed sources are "third party." So, I do believe I'll take this AFD off my watchlist, and leave you guys to it. Best, LHM 07:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If DonaldRichardSands wishes me to deal more 'kindly' with his comments, then I would strongly suggest that he takes more care with them. WP:Third-party sources makes the following definition: "Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials."

This clearly excludes Adventist sources with which the subject is affiliated. WE DO NOT "consider Spectrum and Adventist Today to be third-party sources" for this reason.

I would point out to DonaldRichardSands that this point has already been made to him on the AfD page (cited to WP:Notability in that case), and that such behaviour has its own section on Wikipedia: WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT -- and it is not taken kindly! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's look at how WP:GNG defines "Independent of the subject" (emph. mine):
 * And from Adventist Today:
 * I see no evidence that SDA news orgs, e.g. Adventist Today, have a "strong connection" to GYC. I invite you to offer something more than and opinions on a supposed "strong connection" between GYC and SDA news orgs. Until then SDA news orgs must be recognized as acceptable sources for purposes of notability. – Lionel (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that SDA news orgs, e.g. Adventist Today, have a "strong connection" to GYC. I invite you to offer something more than and opinions on a supposed "strong connection" between GYC and SDA news orgs. Until then SDA news orgs must be recognized as acceptable sources for purposes of notability. – Lionel (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that SDA news orgs, e.g. Adventist Today, have a "strong connection" to GYC. I invite you to offer something more than and opinions on a supposed "strong connection" between GYC and SDA news orgs. Until then SDA news orgs must be recognized as acceptable sources for purposes of notability. – Lionel (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Spectrum and Adventist Today as sources
It has been suggested that Spectrum and Adventist Today are affiliated with the Adventist Church and thus with GYC. This stretches the definition of affiliation quite a bit. The claim is also inconsistent since both Spectrum, Adventist Today and also the Adventist Review and even regional SDA church journals are accepted in hundreds of citations all across the Wikipedia article spectrum. I think this needs to be resolved by veteran editors who have not been warring with me on this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a stretch, where: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) (As DonaldRichardSands has already pointed out to him -- more WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT) the Adventist Review piece is an "interview with the general vice president of GYC . This goes well beyond not being 'independent-as-defined-byWP:N' to not even remotely close to "third-party" by any reasonable definition." This is the GYC's own view of itself, verbatim.
 * 2) * I would further point out that the Adventist Today piece is simply excerpted quotations from the above interview, and not in any way more independent. The claim cited to it actually comes from a comment left by a reader on the piece -- in violation of WP:V: "Never use posts left by readers as sources." (striking, per below)
 * 3) The simple fact that there is no coverage of this group in other denominations', or secular, publications is a fairly strong indicator that the level of coverage was due to the affiliation -- that is a perfectly reasonable editorial decision for these publications to make. It is however not reasonable to expect Wikipedia not to notice this fairly strong correlation between denomination-of-publication and coverage, and expect it not to discount this coverage's notability-value fairly heavily because of this. As has also been pointed out to DonaldRichardSands, this is about notability not reliability.

Reviewing the Spectrum piece, it probably would count as reasonably independent (though not well-presented as such in the article -- which originally hid the fact that it was the piece itself that was the quoted 'critic'). But it is insufficient coverage own its own to rescue notability (it certainly does not "address the subject directly in detail" -- just offers a generalised opinion). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Spectrum is finally acceptable. At least the one that denounces GYC
I have been asked by a few editors to attempt a rescue of this article from deletion. This is not an easy task. Hrafn is probably one of the most persistent, yet knowledgeable, editors I have met so far. Mind you I am very new to Wikipedia. I have also noticed that Hrafn accepted the Spectrum article after he read its strong denunciation of GYC. This shows a bias, but I can live with that. Hrafn, I would alert you to these comments, but you have told me not to do that because you are watching articles of interest to you. (You see, I do pay attention to your advice. lol )

Now back to the article. Its still highly inadquate; a mess, frankly. If Hrafn stays with us, the article will be amazing, if it survives. :)

Any editors reading this, if you are at all inclined, please help. It does not matter to me if you are for or against this article. I have learned a lot from Hrafn and he has not yet said one good thing, except to praise that negative article by Spectrum. A copy of this post is placed on other related WP pages DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of help are you looking for? I'll bet I can find sources from independent and Adventist sources, as well as from the disputed A Today and Spectrum? If that's what you want I can provide it probably.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would help. See what you can find. I am rather disappointed that GYC has so few non-Adventist sources . DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All right I did some searching and GYC pops up a few places in sources that have nothing to do with Adventists. The first is this mention GYC-San Jose which lists it as an event and gives a short description. The information of pricing may also be relevant to the article. Next is this article from a Pennsylvania newspaper which talks about mission work and notes "The first One-Day Church was constructed by volunteers from Generation of Youth for Christ in Nueva Esperanza, Ecuador." This is the same GYC which the article is discussing as the subject and other information make clear. Finally there is a news article from Canada found here which discussed 2 entrepreneurs and notes that one of them "had to travel to Baltimore, Md., as part of a Generation of Youth for Christ contingent". Baltimore was the location of the last GYC which took place during the Holiday season. I know that these are small mentioned, but the fact they appear in reliable sources should at least provide some significance.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Statements made by the GYC's own Veep are "Third Party"? How do you justify that?
Well, DonaldRichardSands, how do you justify it? I've brought up the question multiple times, but each time you just change the subject, and when you return to it, it's always just "Adventist Review", conveniently forgetting that its the GYC's own Veep talking. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that not all sources have to be third party. If you want to understand an organization, listen carefully to those who started it. If Newsweek did an interview with the VP, that would be a third party source, wouldn't. If a book dedicated to showing how unreasonable fundamentalists are quoted the VP, that would be a third party source, wouldn't it? What if there was an interview with someone who attended the meetings and was shocked at the proceedings and then it was reported in Time magazine. Wouldn't that be acceptable? A third party source is a journal at arm's length from the institution of GYC. The Wikipedia article is stronger for the information gleaned from that interview. Again, not all sources have to be third party. I will agree with you that this article is not the model for third party citations; far from it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So it wasn't you repeatedly bringing up Adventist Review above, claiming it to be at least semi-independent, and omitting the fact that all of the material cited to it were in fact statements made by the GYC's VP? I hadn't realised that your a/c had been compromised. Maybe you should report this breach to the Wiki-authorities. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No that was me. The Adventist Review is the source for those facts gleaned from the VP. The Adventist Review is not in a direct relationship with GYC. Perhaps a sympathetic relationship. Even third party sources can be sympathetic or not. So it comes back to the Adventist Review. GYC is independent of Church structure and control. It is supportive though. The Adventist Review is under church control. Usually the Adventist Review will not publish criticism of a group like GYC. The interview certainly served the interests of GYC. They got their story out. The interview served the interests of the Church. GYC is very popular right now and the Church knows that it is wise to be supportive of them by doing the interview and letting GYC get its story out. But the issue is the Adventist Review. Is it unnecessarily entangled with GYC? That is a judgment call. Hrafn, I don't expect you to make the same judgment call as I do. I don't even expect you to admit that such a thing is a judgment call at all. You and GYC have more in common than you realize. Perhaps we should introduce a new concept, a WP Fundamentalist. This is a person who deals with Wikipedia Policy much like a Fundamentalist deals with the words of the Bible. What do you think? :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't really 'come back to AR'. The problem is that the AR didn't present any of these 'gleaned facts' in their own voice -- it is simply 'what GYC said', not 'what AR knows to be true'. It therefore had little or no quality control in terms of editorial oversight or fact checking of the contents. It's what GYC wants to have known, pure and simple. It is, in effect, little more than an unpaid advertisement. Whilst such material can be used, with care (but certainly not large swathes cited to it), it does not add much to notability, particularly when published in one of the church's own publications. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Statements by a random reader are a WP:RS?
Who was Elaine Nelson? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Strike that -- the reader was only repeating what the writer said -- my apologies. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you refer to here. I do appreciate an apology from you, just the same. lol. This brings to mind that many journals have a post blog that follows their articles. Elaine is quite active on the Spectrum site. She regularly posts there. In fact, I have had many discussions with her on a forum that is no longer active. You would probably appreciate her perspective. But, I think we would both agree that posts following a news item is not an acceptable source for a Wikipedia article. Mind you, I have learned some rather important facts from these after article discussions. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A website that explicitly says "Use at your own risk" is a WP:RS
And such an amazing source that it gets its own section? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not sure what this refers to. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Then let me remind you: (My response:). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are right that the source is weak. They give that disclaimer you have mentioned for a reason, I suppose. It protects them if their information is wrong. But, the comparison provides a service. It is interesting to see where GYC is among such organizations. To find that information elsewhere would be a monumental task. The graphs are good too. A weak source, I agree. I think our WP readers would find the information of interest.
 * You are also right that a section dedicated to this one source is overdoing it. I figure that eventually the information can be edited into the article better. You would most likely agree that this article has lots of problems. I read an analysis of your editing. The person doing the analysis compared an article before you joined the editing to what the article looked like when it was finished. The analyst pointed out that your efforts had improved the article considerably. Oh to have such help on this one! :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Solid-but-I-don't-know-what-to-do-with-it-just-yet material should be added (in citation form) to the 'Further reading' section (this means that it is both noticed and easy-to-cite if/when somebody finds a use for it in the article proper). Weak-but-interesting material should be added to 'External links' (but read WP:ELNO first, and generally only one link per site). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This last explanation of yours I found both helpful and somewhat confusing. I think the confusion comes from my novice status here at Wikipedia. I studied the link you gave and think I understand things a bit better. Also, I have taken the FAQS section and reworked it into a Structure and Finances section. My goal is to include the best cited information available that WP Readers would find interesting. Your further counsel would be appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, by comparison to these gems...
...."Spectrum is finally acceptable." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Spectrum takes great care to present a scholarly journal, usually. They began kind of like GYC, fully accepted by the church administration. But, then they began examining issues too independently and in an outspoken manner. They fell out of favor with the administration. Some church leaders, if they want to speak their minds, will write for Spectrum. Its kind of mixed now. Spectrum has analyzed some very controversial issues and financial scandals etc. To suggest that they are closely affiliated with the church administration would be incorrect.
 * I make use of Adventist Archives quite a lot. My first article on Wikipedia was about the late Graham Maxwell. If you examine the sources, they are almost all from Adventist Archives. (The Archives are a wonderful source of basic facts and theological cogitations.) Apart from Maxwell's father's very notable books, the Bible Stories and Bedtime Stories, I doubt that the non-Adventist media has very much to say about him. Within the church, Graham Maxwell was highly influential and he became quite controversial in his later years. I tried to find an examination of the controversy in church papers, and could find very little. Adventist publications very seldom print criticism of their own, even if the church's undercurrent is dead set against them. So, if I want to find out about something controversial, I will not go to church papers to find it. They just don't print controversy. Once, the Adventist Review reported on the Evolution/Creation controversy at La Sierra University and La Sierra complained about the 'bad press'. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)