Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Obadiah School of the Bible

SPA tags
Have you read WP:SPA? If so, on what basis is that tag not an accurate description of this single purpose account?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and your point is? Are you saying that Citer is “…suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking”? That is an assumption of bad faith, which is extremely frowned upon. ShoesssS Talk 17:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It's hard to imagine you did read SPA. Because if you did, you would find this in the lede: "A singple purpose account is a user account that edits either a single article, a group of related articles, or performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia." This fellow is definitionally an SPA, and that tag is generally used for AfD discussions. He also has an apparent conflict of interest and those articles will have to be stubbified if they pass AfD because they do not contain any reliable sources sufficient to determine notability or allow for independent verification of their claims. I suggest you read these guidelines before you defend articles that don't meet them and then presume to tell others what's frowned upon.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe the guidelines go past just the opening sentence, don’t they? Regarding the tag, where do the guidelines say that it is used for every AFD?  Doesn’t it in fact say “…These tags are not an official Wikipedia policy, and may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion.” And than go on further state “….Before adding such a tag, please keep in mind that it will probably be taken as an insult or an accusation. Use with consideration.”  Please before quoting policy and guidelines read them throughly.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a cluster of articles all written by one user around an obscure religious sect of 3,000 people (which has its own article; that article has major problems but should not be deleted) none of which are supported by any reliable sources sufficient to establish notability and this user attacks and casts aspersions upon the motives of anyone (i've gone through his history since he attacked me) who tries to bring these articles in line with policy or nominates them for deletion. Whatever the merits of that tag in other cases, in this case and with this user, it's more than appropriate.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK, we are talking about three separate and distinct issues here. First, lets talk about the article in question Dalet School.  I know that the article is cited and referenced for notability, by 3rd party – verifiable – creditable and reliable sources, because I was the one who referenced the piece.  Two, bad writing is not a reason for deletion, rewrite yes, deletion no.  Three, a personal disagreement of opinions, does not warrant an assumption of bad faith.  Four, going through a contributors history, looking for reasons to assume bad faith is considered trolling, and once again is frowned upon to the point it is considered a“…deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces”.  Five, bringing an article to afd, based on personal opinion, is not only considered wrong, it once again assumes bad faith and has no place here on Wikipedia.  I understand that you are a relative new editor here on Wikipedia and do appreciate your contributions.  However, you cannot let personal views or opinions cloud your judgment.  If you run across a situation that makes you grit your teeth, step back for an hour or two, and than revisit.  It will make you a much better editor, and Wikipedia a much better place.  Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 20:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)