User talk:Irvinyalom

Deletion

Your article had been tagged for improvement by another editor as unwikified, dead end and orphaned (no links to other wikipedia article, not linked from any other articles). I felt that it met the criteria for speedy deletion because

It did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts or show that it meets the notability guidelines for organisations.
It attacks a named individual, with accusations of disloyalty and other potentially libellous statements. It is now wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references. As a matter of policy, all biographies of living people will be deleted if they do not have references, and unsourced attack pages merit an instant speedy deletion
Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Yours was heavily one-sided, and sought to promote your church.
You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your church is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Anglican Church of the Incarnation, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Sparthorse (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for email. I'm not sure what article you are referring to. If it's the deleted church article, Diocese of the Advent of the Anglican Orthodox Church, I've given my reasons above. I've had a look at all your church articles, and I think that there is a case for listing all of them for deletion.

Although you provide references, they are not independent, most being linked to the church's sites. The content does not make it clear why the churches are notable. There is little about the churches, much of the content being trivia about religious spats. Incidentally, you should write references as [url description]. Instead of www.anglicananswer.org, write [http://www.anglicananswer.org/ Anglican Answer], which appears as Anglican Answer. This site is clearly not neutral "The Voice for traditional Protestant Anglicanism against Romanism, Puritanism, and Liberalism".

"I can speak first hand of the church since I am one of the clergy and references are made with the website" — so, you have a conflict of interest, and are using one-sided sources. No wonder you think it's impossible to write a neutral article, and don't see a problem in accusing others of schism, using abusive terms like "disloyal and renegade".

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a religious soapbox. I'll give you a few days to try to fix your articles, then I'll go through and if necessary either speedy delete, or nominate at AFD.

To reiterate:

You need genuine factual content with independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines for organisations.
Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Yours was heavily one-sided, and sought to promote your church.
If you feel that you must describe the religious background, do so in a detached way, and avoid accusations against others.
Don't remove improvement tags unless the issues have been adequately addressed

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Church of the Incarnation

If you want the article deleted place {*{db-g7}} without the asterisk (*) at the top of the page. Jim1138 (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{*{db-author}} will do it too. Jim1138 (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]