English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Generation of Youth for Christ

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Generation of Youth for Christ

Generation of Youth for Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would like to nominate this article for deletion as it does not fulfill any of the notability guidelines. This is further detailed by past editors under the talkpage section entitled "Protected." Thank you. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This IP has been blocked for abusive sockpuppeting. I have inquired as to protocol regarding this AFD nomination, and the blocking administrator has informed me that there is no need to restart the nomination. He also asked that any questions regarding striking of the comments made by this IP be referred to him at User_talk:Jclemens. LHM 09:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And the sockmaster BelloWello has been banned from Wikipedia for being an all around ass.– Lionel (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Article clearly passes WP:N. Currently the article is sourced to Adventist Today and Spectrum. There's also this: [1]. The discussion in "Protected" is not admissable here. Some of those editors are long gone. I mean one of them, WikiManOne, a POV edit warrior with multiple blocks is banned. – Lionel (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 05:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs work, but this could be done through proper sourcing and fixing. It's a relevant article about an important youth organization in the SDA denomination. With annual conferences of 6,000 plus it certain has the numbers to be considered influential. It can also be sourced to numerous articles from the SDA publications.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: no indication (either within the article or from Google News/Books) of third-party coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a more complicated case than it first appears. The movement itself seems to be of some significance in the SDA. However, as Hrafn notes above, there's nothing in the way of third party coverage. Yet, at the article talkpage, the point has been made that there are several articles within the scope of SDA that are sourced primarily to Adventist publications. Now, I know that fact is, in itself not an argument for keeping the article, but my recommendation here is not to keep it. Rather, I think I've found a suitable landing spot for a merge and redirect. So, because I think that the content of this article isn't without merit, and because the sources--while not truly third-party--are reliable, I recommend that the article be merged and redirected to Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries. A link to this article about GYFC is already there, so creating a brief sub-section should pose no real problems. LHM 16:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I can provide third party sources both SDA and non-SDA.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
AFD is also not a war, which the tone of your posts makes it seem you think it is. A "per X" recommendation basically means, "X wrote exactly what I would have written had I arrived here first", and is a completely acceptable recommendation. LHM 07:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
      • A rationale has been provided. He concurs with the previous user's rationale. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I mean that I think it should be merged with and redirect to Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries, and that I concur with User:Lithistman's reasoning above. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

*Keep formerly Merge and redirect with Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries since the history of GYC would mostly likely be lost. Note that subsections are not included yet in Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries. That article needs some reformatting if we are going to merge GYC, with its historical story, into it. Changed DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC) from DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC) For my recommendation see below DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Close without prejudice on the grounds that the creator of the article was not given proper notice of this discussion. – Lionel (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    This is unnecessary, and would needlessly inhibit what is becoming the clear consensus. LHM 05:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The informational page clearly states that the notification is not required. Get a clue. Maybe read it better next time? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Your tone, at nearly every step of this process, has left a lot to be desired. While the notification isn't required, it is certainly a common courtesy, and would be rather easily remedied. Certainly, your snarky last two sentences were not appropriate. LHM 05:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
            • I would have thought a regular user like Lionelt would actually know or read the policies before making frivolous motions. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree with you LHM, 50.72 has not been helpful. And IMO they are the snarkiest.– Lionel (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per above. The annual conference is notable enough for mention in another article, just not its own stand alone. As nominator, I would support merging it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

— 50.72.159.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • When the article was nominated it was barely sourced. Thanks to Donald's hard work the article is fully referenced. – Lionel (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
      • And few (any?) of the references are "independent" as WP:Notability requires. Your point is therefore irrelevant. As LHM points out above, there is no SDA exception to WP:Notability's requirement for independent sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Common sense would tell you to keep an article about an organization such as this, but of course common sense has no place in wiki discussions. Sdenny123 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    Common sense says no such thing. And what WP requires for notability is more than this article can offer at this point. As Hrafn notes below, claiming that "common sense" requires one thing or another to happen is very offensive, and isn't a legitimate criterion for recommending "keep." You might as well just say "Keep because I think it should be kept." LHM 20:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

*'Keep Don't be too hard on wikipedia's elusive common sense. lol You will notice above that I favored merging. I think it would be difficult to merge the article and keep the work we have put into it.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC) For my recommendation see below DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  • See above. This isn't a legitimate criterion for recommending "keep." You might as well just say "Keep because I think it should be kept." LHM 20:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the information provided, yes by hard work, is relevant to the GYC topic. Keep because the article is about a noteworthy phenomenon and the article, while still in process, tells a noteworthy story. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC) For my recommendation see below DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment:

When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the encyclopedia, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, cite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and explain why doing so will improve Wikipedia in that instance.

— WP:NOCOMMON
An argument or reason is needed, not simply an invocation of "common sense". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I take this to be his reason: "I think it would be difficult to merge the article and keep the work we have put into it"--Donald (– Lionel (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC))
Loss of excessive WP:PRIMARY/affiliated source material in the merge [does not 'harm the encyclopaedia' and so] is hardly a good argument against merging, when the lack of third-party sourcing is under discussion as a reason for deleting it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
And I would point out that DonaldRichardSands wasn't the only one invoking "common sense" and Sdenny123's comment was even more devoid of argument than Donald's was. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Hrafn for providing the legal citations. I am pleased to finally find a kindred soul on Wikipedia. I was afraid someone who disagreed with my keep would rant on about my vote, so being intimidated by earlier editor's comments I avoided all argument and reason so I wouldn't be humiliated. I hope I haven't offended anyone who thinks differently than us. Sdenny123 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment re: 3rd party sources The sources being questioned I believe are Spectrum, Adventist Today, SDA-affiliated sources generally. These sources are WP:RS. That is not in dispute (I certainly hope that's not being challenged). But are these sources valid 3rd party sources for this article? The only way to make a determination is to post at WP:RSN. AfD is not the venue to evaluate sources. Until then these sources are considered WP:RS for this article in spite of opinions to the contrary. This means of course that the article passes WP:N with room to spare. – Lionel (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    They are not "third party" sources. The entire article is sourced only to publications by the SDA. This is fine if it's simply referencing something that's a part of a larger article (as the merge and redirect will do), but not for a stand-alone article. I would also encourage you to make certain you're not turning this into a battleground, upon which you are making a stand. Your message here reads that way to me. LHM 02:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Just because a publication is published by SDA doesn't necessary mean that the pub has abrogated it's ethical responsibility to be neutral and impartial. We obviously disagree. That is why I hold the position that this is not the venue to evaluate sources: RSN is. – Lionel (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (This point I am adding here comes 5 days later than the discussion.) SDA sponsored means SDA financed/controlled; kind of like SDA funded. Adventist Today, Spectrum and GYC are independent of official SDA control. The two journals mentioned are often an annoyance, or thorn in the side, of the official leadership and organizational structure of the church. They tell both sides of the story. They take stands on issues that are opposed to the official church stand. Adventist controlled journals usually only tell one side of the story. Recently, they have begun to allude to the other side, but usually do not address it straight out. Thus, Adventist controlled journals are reliable, they do carefully check their stories, but not investigatory and certainly not independent. The exception to this could be the scholarly Ministry magazine. Historically there are even two kinds of 'self-supporting', or independent, organizations. One is operated like a business club (ASI) and the other operates almost like a church within a church. Wildwood (located in Georgia) and its 'off spring' come under this second category. At first, the church seemed threatened by Wildwood. Wildwood was ultra-conservative and uncompromising. It was a rural movement within the Adventist world. Now the two organization hold each other in a respectful manner. As a youth, I visited Oak Haven near Pullman, Michigan many times. Oak Haven was part of the Wildwood group. The Adventist world is somewhat complicated. The main problem with the GYC article is that the media outside the Adventist world have not noticed the impact GYC is having on Adventism. It is helping to reshape the North American focus of the church. I am open for correction if I am mistaken in my analysis. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
We are evaluating this article's notability, nothing more. If you want to change the notability requirements, you should do so at the appropriate page, which is not here. SDA-sponsored sources are not independent of the subject of the article, and thus--as Hrafn points out below--add nothing to the notability of this subject as pertains to this discussion. Those sources do, however, provide sufficient basis for inclusion of the material in a merge and redirect to the article into which the material is merged. LHM 07:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:Notability defines "Independent of the subject" as "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." It is clear that Generation of Youth for Christ is affiliated with the SDA, therefore SDA sources are not "independent of the subject", and so cannot add to notability. That does not necessarily mean that they are not reliable, just that they have a predisposition to give the subject greater, and more sympathetic, coverage -- so should not count towards notability, and should not be the sole source of significant coverage beyond that which is pure self-description coverage from the subject itself (for WP:NPOV reasons). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's look at how WP:GNG defines "Independent of the subject" (emph. mine):

Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability

I see no evidence that SDA news orgs, e.g. Adventist Today, have a "strong connection" to GYC. Until a "strong connection" is discussed and a determination made at WP:RSN, SDA news orgs are acceptable sources for purposes of notability. – Lionel (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The GYFC is under the direct purview of the SDA. So are those "news" sources. Until and unless reliable third-party sources can be found, SDA-funded magazines and such simply will not do. Have you had a chance to look at where Acquire the Fire (a far more expansive set of conferences) lands as an article? It's a redirect to the main organization, which is as it should be. I'm not arguing for deletion here, just a simple merge and redirect, since non-third party sources are fine for inclusion in a parent article. LHM 03:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually both GYC and those "news sources" are separate from the official SDA body. For example Spectrum magazine is an independent magazine that is written to focus on SDA issues from an outside perspective. As such it's editorial oversight is very much focused on providing coverage of the official church which is different that what the official organizations may want printed. The history of Spectrum and the SDA church is well documented. In fact there is a report out from the official church detailing how Spectrum and it's parent organization Adventist Forums are an outside ministry which should bring itself in line with official church views. Spectrum is definitely not under the "purview" of the SDA church. Many of it's editors and authors are Seventh-day Adventists, but they do so under no official church position. Most of the authors in fact hold very few positions if any in their local conferences. As for Adventist Today, it is less critical than Spectrum but also provides an "honest" and alternative look at the SDA church. For example in it's Guiding Principles [2] it states it "is not a “house organ” which is what some readers call publications such as those published by the denomination. Adventist Today is not required to advance any particular theological point of view or endorse any specific organizational policy in the magazine, in the weekly ATUpdate, or on our web site. Adventist Today is an independent voice not beholden to any ecclesiastical, corporate or institutional sponsor." While the SDA church does have an official news organization (Adventist News Network) and magazine (Adventist Review) these other organizations and separate and independent. Finally neither of these have a "strong connection" to the subject GYC. In fact both of them have been rather critical at times of the movement/organization. GYC itself has not always been in perfect relations with the official church as this discussion shows [3], though that is now beginning to change, one reason for it being a very relevant article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
"Adventist Today is an independent voice not beholden to any ecclesiastical, corporate or institutional sponsor." I think the previous (located by FVW) casts irrefutable doubt on the position that AT has a "strong connection" to GYC. – Lionel (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It is possible for an annual event having grown from a group of twelve to now involving thousands to be ignored by the public media. Further, it is possible that a group close to a thousand, annually enlisting hundreds of the public to formally study the bible, is not noteworthy because only Adventist sources report on them. If this is the case, I agree that GYC is not notable, at least by wikipedia standards. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (i) WP:BIGNUMBERs do not demonstrate notability. I would expect a great many large annual conferences occur without garnering much coverage and thus notability. (ii) I really don't see the relevance (or a source within the article for) "annually enlisting hundreds of the public to formally study the bible". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If it has not been covered in reliable, third party sources, then it belongs as a part of a larger article, as I recommended above. It's nothing personal against the SDA, it's just Wikipedia's policy. LHM 08:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Further comment: in expansion of my previous comment I would note that most of the 'History' section (and thus much of the article) is sourced to an Adventist Review 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. I would rather describe it as 'utterly and incestuously insider'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It is possible to provide information about GYC in journals at arms' length from the organization but not beyond the Adventist scope. I have looked for non-Adventist related third pary sources and can find nothing. There are over 500 Adventist-related Wikipedia articles, most of which have very few non-Adventist third party sourced information. I suggest that most institutional wikipedia articles, of any stripe, depend largely on institutional-related sources for their detailed facts. If this GYC article is deleted, a significant religious movement in America will not be included in Wikipedia. I will be disappointed that the valuable information especially regarding its beginnings, i.e a few young adults getting an idea that becomes a movement of thousands, will be lost. Also, Wikipedia cannot report on some things that are important. Most encyclopedias have similar problems. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    All of you that want to keep this article seem like very earnest folks. But the fact that there are other SDA-related articles that are sourced to non-third party references isn't an argument for keeping this article. And this isn't personal, or anything against your religion. For example, Acquire the Fire is a much larger-scoped event than GYFC, and yet look where the link to it points. There's a place for the information about GYFC. It's just not in a stand-alone article. LHM 09:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Lithistman, your points are well-taken. I see no problem merging with a larger entity's article. However, I do find the history of how GYC started to be significant, notable information which ought not be lost. I do appreciate your careful analysis of matters. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Filling-in-the-gaps "institutional-related sources for their detailed facts" is okay as long as they don't predominate, cover areas of subjective opinion, or attempt to introduce subtopics for which no genuinely independent source establishes noteworthiness. Citing the whole article to such sources, and particularly most of the 'History' section to what their own VP said about themselves is not "arms' length" and not even close to acceptable practice. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the article's 'History' section is too dependent on what one of the founders of GYC recounts. There is no way to obtain his account than from him. The 2:00 a.m. brain wave was only experienced by two people, him and the one who became the leader of GYC. Has the whole article been cited to such sources? Perhaps, but the article should be viewed as in process rather than completed. If I recall correctly, Wikipedia encourages editors to get involved in editing and to expect goodwill help along the way. The 'goodwill' is evident from some critical editors and apparently lacking in others. Is GYC at all notable? Does it need to be merged with a notable entity's article? Is the information collected from the leaders irrelevant? If not, what should be done with it? Is Wikipedia stronger if the GYC information disappears completely? What is the point of Wikipedia? Why does it allow a grassroots initiative? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I would have to suggest that a "2:00 a.m. brain wave" belongs in an autobiography, or in a personal testament on The Oprah Winfrey Show (or similar), not in an encyclopaedia (paper or otherwise). An encyclopaedia is a place for impersonal facts and scholarly opinions, not personal epiphanies. "Wikipedia encourages editors to get involved in editing" an encyclopaedia -- if you're looking for a depository of personal testaments, then you're welcome to start 'Wikitestament'. "Is Wikipedia stronger if" it culls rampant self-description so that readers have a reasonable degree of trust that articles reflect objective third-party scholarship and opinion? YES! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Impersonal facts only? I agree that objective facts are important. Scholarly opinions, as well. I disagree that a personal epiphany account on how an important movement got started is unacceptable for Wikipedia. If a 2:00 a.m. Eureka moment ends up creating something profound then that moment is important. I disagree that personal moments of "Eureka" have no place here at Wikipedia. In fact, the opposite can be demonstrated. Such epiphanies have been called by Wikipedia as the Eureka effect. Sudden flashes of insight are very important in life. Einstein's thinking on the theory of relativity was advanced partially by a Eureka moment. Sir Alec Jeffreys had a flash of insight at 9:05 am on Monday 10 September 1984 that led to the developing of his understanding of the scope of DNA. If Wikipedia captures a few of those important moments, those Eureka moments, then the encyclopedia will be better for it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
And I would note that no mention of Einstein's 'eureka moment' is made in special relativity, the article directly analogous to this one. So why is it so earth-shatteringly important that such a moment gets mentioned here, in violation of Wikipedia policy? Are you really claiming that Kim's insight was more profound than Einstein's was? And "I disagree" that you have established that this is an "important movement", to anybody other than fellow conservative Adventists -- so take leave to dispute conclusions made on the basis of that claim. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Einstein's moment could be mentioned without violating Wikipedia policy. I don't consider Kim's Eureka moment to be of "earth shattering" importance. But it is important to the story of GYC. We will have to agree to disagree regarding what makes a movement important. I suggest that Kim's accomplishment is an important event in sociology, as well. It is important to Adventists, not just conservative ones. Adventism does have an impact, though minor, on America. It has an impact even here at Wikipedia, though minor. I disagree that the mention of a Eureka moment violates Wikipedia policy. Eureka moments impact the world. I am rather new to Wikipedia, but I have noticed that some Wikipedia editors interpret policy in a very narrow, legalistic manner. Others are broad-minded and generous. I have seen the same thing in matters of religion and faith. I am still hoping for a sense of goodwill as we discuss these matters. Goodwill is one of the endearing principles of the Wikipedia world. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
And I have noticed that most editors on SDA topics appear to not give a damn about policy, objectivity, or the relationship between prominence and proportion -- they wander off onto lengthy tangents, on the basis of the flimsiest of sources, and at the drop of a hat. This all-to-frequently violates policy, both in spirit and in the widest-most-generous (short of simply ignoring it) interpretation of the letter. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I can assure you that I do care about policy, objectivity, and the relationship between prominence and proportion. I also care about goodwill. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "some Wikipedia editors interpret policy in a very narrow, legalistic manner" "I also care about goodwill." Some Wikipedia editors might experience a degree of cognitive dissonance from those two statements. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it showing a lack of goodwill to say that the interpretation of policy is narrow and legalistic? Does 'goodwill' mean non-critical? Wikipedia policies have been written with intelligence and balance. Hrafn, I do appreciate your understanding of WP policies and continue to learn from your comments directed my way. I remain concerned about the narrow interpretation of policy, not just on your part, but on the part of any editor. Even so, I must admit that a severe adherence to policy does help my thinking. So don't give up. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Just becasue a news org interviews a subject doesn't mean it is "incestuously insider." We certainly wouldn't apply that standard to say the NY Times. One interview does not establish the "strong connection" required by WP:GNG. – Lionel (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. For a grassroots movement such as GYC (initially dismissed and marginalized) to rise to the level of having such a significant impact on the church (as to gain the support of the President of the world church, editors of the official church magazine, and to inspire young people around the world), the article meets the criteria of notability. However, the current version needs editing, improvement, and additional reliable sources. Many of these sources are available, but were obviously missed in the present article. We must keep the article, but work to improve it.--HopeAfrique (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

None of the things you mention regarding the GYFC's impact on the church lend notability to the article. And other editors have been trying to find reliable third party sources, and there just isn't any significant amount of coverage on the topic. LHM 19:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, it should be noted that this recommendation comes from an editor who has recently sockpuppeted as a single-purpose account in editing SDA-related articles. LHM 19:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the nominator of this AfD is a SPA and sock and the master has been indef blocked and community banned from Wikipedia.– Lionel (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have asked the blocking admin for guidance on this, and it in no way affects the nomination. Additionally, your behavior at this AFD is degenerating quickly. Perhaps you should consider taking a break from commenting here. LHM 06:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Explanation of your last remark please. – Lionel (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
"And the sockmaster BelloWello has been banned from Wikipedia for being an all around ass." --Lionelt LHM 23:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Let's continue our discussion on this AFD's talk page.

Delete: I'm sorry but this article just doesn't cut the mustard. Read WP:CORPDEPTH please. notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. And the sources should be reliable. Rather than spending so much time in discussions, let's just discuss if this coverage is significant or not, and it seems pacific to me that it isn't: All the sources are adventist ones (with the exception of "Spectrum", a blog-not reliable). My vote is final. Divide et Impera (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Spectrum is actually more than a blog. It is a reliable journal and has been seen as such in many other such discussions. While it does have a "blog" it also is in print form. It's also third party as it is independent of the SDA church both in funding and in focus.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note to Closing Admin Some salient points to consider:
  1. Since the nomination of the article, for all intents and purposes, the article has been rewritten and is fully referenced
  2. Some voters voted prior to the article renovation and sourcing
  3. The nominator is a sock of the banned BelloWello
GYC is covered in multiple reliable sources (please see [4])
  1. Hanson, Andrew (January 24, 2011), "Reviewing the Review: GYC Edition", Spectrum Magazine, retrieved January 25, 2011
  2. http://www.atoday.org/article.php?id=111 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) – Lionel (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep GYC is unique in several ways. Its story has tremendous social implications within any large company or charitable organization. It demonstrates the power of an idea and that a few people, young people, can make a difference in a multi-billion dollar organization. (SDA income for 2009 exceeded $50 billion.) Also, the financial information about GYC demonstrates how volunteerism makes a big difference on the bottom line of a charitable organization. Of the thirty organizations doing similar work to GYC, few if any can report 100% use of funds for their program objectives. This is because the whole group are volunteers. Of the thirty, GYC ranks seventh in total income. These things have not been reported on outside of Adventism except by those third party journals which focus almost entirely on Adventism. And those journals are strongly critical of GYC. The biggest problem is notability outside the church's circle. It seems that no one outside of Adventism knows of the GYC phenomenon. In North American Adventism, this movement is making a big impact especially on the youth. If the Adventist church is notable in American society, then GYC is also notable. Technically, there are plenty of citations which are not beholden to GYC. GYC is not controlled by the Adventist Church. It is a separate charitable institution. All the Adventist articles about GYC support it because of how the GYC organization helps the Church's youth. Of course, one can say that all those Adventist journals are part of a big family. Perhaps, but the Wikipedia policy on third party journals doesn't read like it is addressing such a diverse and complicated family. At some point, we will need to appeal to Wikipedia's administrators and get them to weigh in on the issue. If the article is deleted, life will go on. But, an important story will have been lost to Wikipedia. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  • You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line.

...

  • Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after the *, as in "▪ Delete Speedy keep".
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Point taken. I think I now have only one recommendation on this page. Thanks for pointing this out and for your patience. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep -- The article is a fascinating look at the birth of a new spiritual "movement" within the Adventist Church. Wikipedia is better with the article than without it. The article was nominated out of sheer spite by a now banned editor, an Adventist himself who hates any Adventist more "conservative" than he; on that basis alone it should be kept (no article should be targeted for deletion just because of someone's agenda). It is difficult for a "movement" within a church to meet the strictest standards of notability because purely independent RSs just don't care; they only get interested when there is conflict and controversy. But that doesn't mean GYC is not notable. As Donald Sands says, you have to understand the different "currents" in the SDA to realize that an article in Spectrum magazine, for example, would be as critical and "objective" about the GYC as would an article in The New York Times. So, I recommend flexibility in applying the Notability standards here. The published financial statements also bolster the claim of notability and make the article more interesting. Keep for all the reasons given by Donald Sands. Keep! --Kenatipo speak! 19:40, 8 July 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Articles_for_deletion/Generation_of_Youth_for_Christ&oldid=3513682"