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 delete. Much of the discussion has been off-topic, but two things seem clear: that the Universal Life Church World Headquarters is a different organization from the Universal Life Church, and that there is consensus that the ULCWH doesn't pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Universal life church world headquarters

[edit]
Universal life church world headquarters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spammy article about the headquarters of the Universal Life Church, and much of the article is actually devoted to the latter. Most of the references are press releases. A redirect has been reverted. Nothing warrants an article about the headquarters that's distinct from the one on the organization as a whole: this ain't the Holy See. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how I can be misinterpreting this incorrectly, wherefore I say this pretty much puts asunder any talk of deletion of this article.

WP:INHERITED - "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed.'"

WP:NRVE - "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the wording "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed" do not appear in WP:INHERITED. I have checked every version of the page since April, and it did not appear in any of them.

Wikipedia uses newspapers, magazines only as examples, independent verification is not limited to such venues. Please keep this in mind. Wikipedia itself considers Lisa Williams to be famous and unique to allow her a page within Wikipedia. Lisa Williams appears on this Churches worldwide radio network, national TV and has public speaking engagements throughout the world. Actor Max Ryan is also a minister. William Clinton became an ordained Minister. These Ministers are all well documented. Danny Bonaduce has indicated on Facebook and on his radio show how he is an ordained Minister with the ULC World Headquarters.JordanFrancis (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats On TV in the United Kingdom? Worldwide - UK Publication (Independent 3rd Party Review)

http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/video/youtube/search/ulcnetwork

Lisa Williams https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150808013565588

JordanFrancis (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This maybe a blog, yet the largest retailer in the world has a written agreement with this Church on file. Obviously Walmart would add 3rd party notability.

Also this Church with Dr Jerry Epperson in Seoul, and as a Chaplain the US Armed Services as indicated on the website offers 3rd party notability. http://ulcnetwork.socialgo.com/members/profile/418JordanFrancis (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is understandable how posts would not be deemed notable, however with that said, the followers of these pages are calculated by third party from clicks by people who choose to follow the organization.

On Facebook Over 20,000 followers - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Universal-Life-Church/147869338562220 No other Universal Life Church comes close.

Nearly 10,000 followers on Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/ulcnetwork

Over 3,000 followers on Google +, nearly 1000 on Spiritual Networks, 2,000+ on Shoutlife.

This clearly shows just how huge a following they have. On their ULC Radio Network they average 10,000+ listeners a month.JordanFrancis (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have added the below references so as to address some of the editors concerns regarding 3rd party reference including to the [Make A Wish Foundation] recognition of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters further establishing notability and International Influence [1] We have also included the [Walmart] Corporation [2]. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're stretching it, We don't evaluate notability by counting tweets. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITED - "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed.'"

WP:NRVE - "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate

The Olelo Telivision Network, with Lisa Williams and the ULC World HQ is now mentioned on their Wikipedia page as well as Lisa Williams. Listed are famous people in addition including an ex president, a Hollywood actor and others. Added is a UK TV Network Publication who lists videos.JordanFrancis (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should go back and re-read, more closely, the pages on which WP:INHERITED and WP:NRVE appear, and also WP:ORG, which is the basic notability criteria. You have seriously misunderstood those guidelines. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preface: ULCHQ is a fraudulent and misleading organization. Allowing a Wikipedia Page on ULCHQ would hurt the overall credibility of Wikipedia. The fact that their name includes ULC (Universal Life Church) is misleading because they don’t share any of the same fundamental ULC beliefs, notably religious freedom. They are a Christian based organization tarnishing the ULC doctrine and its ministers through religious exclusion and bigotry. The inclusion into Wikipedia would hurt all ministers ordained through the original ULC (Modesto) as well as other legitimate ULC’s. I know that this could be look at as an opinion and since Wikipedia is all about NPOV and reliable sources I will cite actual reasons for deletion.

Reasons for Speedy Deletion

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Clearly there is a lack of reliable third party sources for ULCHQ to cite. Therefore, they must augment and try to fool Wikipedia through linking to their own site for reliability. This page is exclusively promotional and doesn’t present any NPOV content. Wikipedia is entirely being used as a promotional tool for ULCHQ.

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). There is nothing of any significance presented in the article that will help Wikipedia readers gain clarity on what the ULCHQ does. Much of the content is misleading. For example, “The Universal Life Church World Headquarters claims to believe in and Support the Christian Doctrine of Faith Stating The Following Beliefs” section. These are all just Christian doctrines nothing new or notable. Nothing that indicates importance.

Also the “Vocations” section says: “The Universal Life Church World Headquarters is unique in the sense that it is perhaps the only Church in the world with both an online and offline presence that offers ordination, following an individual's baptism, as a Non-denominational Faith Based Minister and/or Holy Orders as an Independent Catholic Priest with succession and lineage to Jesus Chris”

Then cites itself. No reliable source on uniqueness, just a wild assumption.

The ULCHQ page as I see it violates all the core content policies. There is no NPOV. No Verifiability and no Original Research.

Please delete this page and continue the Wikipedia precedence of balanced and impartial pages. DavidOff1234 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bill Clinton, obviously you are showing your connection to the ULC Modesto, just because the ULC Modesto uses celebrity ordinations on Wikipedia, this does not justify or require other ULC's to do so. Wikipedia is not designed for promotional purposes. For this page to be deleted a consensus must be reached, not a consensus by numbers, but a consensus of all contributors. I can't speak for the author, but it appears to me he or she is looking to appease Wikipedia policy concerning promotion. Using celebrities is a promotional tool, if documentation becomes necessary, I'm sure such can be provided.

What I see here on this is a page is a war being waged by individuals loyal to the ULC in Modesto. Many of these DELETE REQUESTS are from those who are extremely active on the ULC Modesto page. Ideally Wikipedia's desire is to see a creative discussion and suggestion to retain a page rather than to delete a page. These calls for DELETE'S only defies Wikipedia's objective and they indicate a non neutral stance, competitive in nature and with intent of waging war against the Universal Life Church World Headquarters.

The author of this page and I have have added a great deal of notable, 3rd party information and there is reason to believe and/or to expect even more over the coming months, pending a potential review process if such becomes necessary. This Universal Life Church World Headquarters has a place on Wikipedia.JordanFrancis (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, WP:INHERITED does not say that "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed." At least it doesn't as of this writing, and if someone tried to add that statement, it would be an incorrect statement of Wikipedia guidelines. I have no connection to the ULC in Modesto other than that I had heard of it before this AfD began, whereas I had not heard of the ULCHQ before this AfD began. Regarding Bill Clinton, you are correct to say that a church does not need to have celebrity ordinations to be notable. However, you yourself wrote in this edit, "the fact ... that this Church has ordained former politicians and judges, including the ordination of President William Clinton, that is clearly notability. What other Church ever on this planet ordained a former President?" You went on to repeat in this edit, "William Clinton became an ordained Minister. These Ministers are all well documented." I personally do not know whether President Bill Clinton was ordained by the ULC in Modesto or the ULCHQ or by anybody at all. I have not seen any reliable sources stating that he was ordained or which church ordained him if he was. But if he was ordained by the ULCHQ, someone needs to provide a reliable source that says so. And if he was not ordained by the ULCHQ, then he is not relevant to this AfD and should not have been mentioned in the first place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User: Metropolitan90 - Thank You for your input and time. We are making progress here in discussing and creating a clear, concise WIKI page for the Universal Life Church World Headquarters. This is, and should be, the goal collectively to better clarify and provide obviously needed and important information regarding the ULCHQ in general as well as its seperate identity from other ULC organizations for WIKI encyclopedic readers. Editors of the ULCHQ WIKI page are working diligently and will make edits to ensure your, and others noted, constructive edits are succinct and paralleled by the cited third party sources and will clarify the changes and information as addressed in recent discussion. Again, obviously the value of having the ULCHQ page included in Wikipedia is being uncovered.Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the courses from Professors of accredited Universities, the uniqueness is while they maybe available from the publisher as any text maybe, they are not available at the cost ULC World HQ can offer them for. The publisher does offer discounts once in great blue moon. The ULC World HQ offers them at 50-70% below the publisher retail price. Furthermore, ULC World HQ has instructors on staff that will assist the respective individualsJordanFrancis (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Another unique factor and this should not be overlooked, but the ULC World HQ has a medical advisory board, that includes a college professor and medical professional on staff of a hospital in Canada. http://www.ulcnetwork.com/medical Dr Joel has written many articles and has included the ULC World HQ in his articles. While Dr Joel is from Canada, there is no mistaking the professionalism this man brings the table. And I quote Dr Joel's resume;

"Rev. Dr. Joel Lamoure is a multiple national and international award-winning Associate Professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Medicine at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry (SSMD), and Assistant Director of CME-Department of Psychiatry, University of Western Ontario and Teaching Associate, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto. In his hospital clinical practice, he serves as a psychiatric pharmacist at London Health Sciences Centre, Victoria Hospital. On the research side of the bench, Dr. Lamoure is an Associate Scientist at the Lawson Health Research Institute, affiliated with the London Hospitals. He is an Accreditor with Accreditations Canada specializing in medication management and mental health with an interest in infection control and ambulatory care. There are almost a dozen Ask The Expert publications written in Medscape written by Professor Lamoure. Starting in December 2008, Joel took over as the Medical Psychiatry Consultant expert for the Canadian Journal of CME and Pharmacy Mental Health expert for Pharmacy Gateway (Canadian Healthcare Network). He has recently been inducted into membership with the European Congress of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP).

He has won the Western Teaching Roll of Honour in Medicine for the past 5 academic years, the most recent being the 2009-2010 academic year . He has also won the UWO CME Award in Medicine for 2007 and the University Of Toronto Teaching Award in 2006. He has published over 100 journal papers, poster abstracts, methodologies of practice and consultant reviews on mental health medications and their impact to the patient and their quality and quantity of life. (Publications)

Joel was awarded a Fellowship in the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists (Geriatrics) in 2000, and completed his D.D. in 2011 with the Universal Life Church. Areas of interest and research include medical conditions that overlap and augment the severity of psychiatric disorders, patient care deliverable models, medical metaphysics and impacts of alternative treatments and psychopharmacology.

Rev. Dr. Lamoure is a listee in numerous publications recognizing his work including the Canadian Book of Who?s Who (2008, 2009, 2010 Centennial Ed, 2011 editions), and the prestigious referenced Marquis Book of ?Who?s Who in Medicine in the World? (7th, 8th and 9th International editions starting in 2009, Marquis Book of ?Who?s Who in the World? for 2011 and 2012 and the Marquis Book of ?Who?s Who in Science and Engineering? for the 2011-2012 edition."JordanFrancis (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First Rules of Wiki 1.neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The arguments given by JordainFrancis and Pastorbodhi1 are all links back to the very site in question. In fact I would not be suprised if both of these "individuals" are Michael Cauley himself as they seem to have the same jumbled writing style that is meant to confuse. No new information here and no third party unbiased reliable sources to back up these claims. The claim to be in a retail relationship with Walmart, is a link to the ULCHQ own page where they have filled out a form to be an affiliate (which anyone can do) and the last notes by JordanFrancis about the notability of Dr. Joel Lamore and the ULCHQ having a "medical advisory board" are very questionable looking. It appears this doctor was given a random title within the church but other than that has nothing to do with it... there is no ULCHQ medical advisory to be a board member of. This is a person pursuing their own self interest by writing a confusing article to convolute the subject. It is some strange form of self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rileyrickter (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — Rileyricketer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Rileyricketer This Editor Here Is Obviously Both A New Editor And New To This Discussion & Wiki in general. Visiting the previous editors discussions as well as the other 3rd party links from the ULCHQ Wiki Site will only serve to educate this editor and other parties that not all the links provided link back to the ULCHQ site, e.g., the Star Advertiser, OLELO Television, et al. This individual also did not do the research which prooves the ULCHQ Advisory Board's existence. Nevertheless this is not really the issue here. The ULCHQ WIKI page is notable and necessary if only to provide needed lines between two known ULC Organizations and the services that it provides seems certainly worthwhile. Even more pertinent here is that progress is being made to create a WIKI page which offers good citations, notability of services offered by the organization, etc., offered by unbiased WIKI editors. Simply Deleting A page such as this would be a disservice to the WIKI community. Move To Keep Page Without Prejudice. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhiPastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A bit rich coming from an account only itself created six days ago! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Huge conflict with requirement for independent source which defines bias as self published sources. This is PURELY cited with self published links and pr releases directly from the church itself, needs to be tagged *THIRD PARTY* for deletion. There are no links that support this topic being inherently notable anywhere other than on their own site and in their own PR releases. CONFLICT OF INTEREST this is a vanity article for the financial gain of the organization. The age of my account doesn't have anything to do with the validity of my argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rileyrickter (talk • contribs) 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The mentioning of names alludes to a hidden agenda, a lack of neutrality and Church of Scientology of which Wikipedia banned a few years ago. Look at those requesting delete, they are all active contributors to the Universal Life Church page.

NatGertler you are just looking to argue, again the objective of Wikipedia is not to see this page deleted, but rather to work together to make revisions. Metropolitan appears to be the only neutral contributor and who looks to comply with Wikipedia. Articles in Wikipedia look to inform, you are looking to compete, ultimately promoting the other page.

These entities are clearly different, they are each unique and each have their place here within Wikipedia. I will say this and metropolitan will attest, I was going to look to shut down, to delete the other Wikipedia page. I chose not to because it is not very professional nor the correct route to go. It is not the correct route to go for biased supporters of the other other ULC page to be Wiki Editors and to come on to this page and trash it, or to call others names or to ridicule.

Metropolitan and others have stated the tag should be removed from this page, I agree and my advice is for the Universal of Life Church Modesto for you to concentrate on your page. You are so busy knocking ours, you are only taking away from yours by doing so.

Wikipedia is not the place for my ULC is the better ULC...JordanFrancis (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material you are making up about me is both inappropriate and false on the face of it. When I point out that someone is inventing a quote and using it to misrepresent WP:INHERIT, it's because someone was inventing a quote and misrepresenting WP:INHERIT and those falsehoods should not steer the conversation. Are people who were editing the ULC article now editing this one? Yes, because after someone tried to destroy the ULC article and replace it with a promo page for the ULCHQ, this deletion discussion was mentioned on the ULC article's talk page, so it gained their attention. Does someone editing the ULC talk page make them inherently biased to ULC? Of course not. I do not limit my edits to pages for things that I support; I've edited thousands of different pages of Wikipedia, and have been editing it for over half a decade now. I have no connection to the ULC, nor have I any reason to promote them. Your description of the "objective of Wikipedia" is not well informed. If you don't want people who disagree with you to be able to edit your page, then Wikipedia is not the place to be putting it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to support Nat in principle in this discussion. Nat Gertler has not said anything in this discussion that was inappropriate for an Articles for Deletion discussion, and he should be treated with good faith here by the other participants in this discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Protocol note: To make the discussion easier to read, each participant should make only one recommendation (!vote) for how to deal with the article. Since Pastorbodhil previously made the same recommendation, the duplicate was struck. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler - I assure you no one set out to destroy your page, neither myself or PastorBodhi1 had anything to do with it. It was BlanchardB who attempted to destroy it by claiming it was outdated. It is quite evident you are not willing to work with us, so be it. If this page is taken down we will appeal. There is no reason why two pages cannot exist for two completely different organizations. If you deem us not worthy of Wikipedia, where is it the other ULC is? I am not amused by accusations or name calling by editors who are to remain neutral.JordanFrancis (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. This discussion is not about the merits (or lack thereof) of the other article; it is about the article on the Universal life church world headquarters. At the end of the discussion (7–10 days from initial listing), an administrator who has not otherwise been involved will evaluate whether there is consensus, based on the discussion here, to keep the article or delete it. (If the administrator feels there is no consensus, s/he may relist it for extended discussion or may close the discussion as "no consensus", in which case the article will stay up.) Any appeal would need to show that Wikipedia's discussion guidelines were not followed in the course of closing the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the disputes are personal, and I believe third party intervention will agree. There are no issues or disputes regarding this page from any editor that has not actively posted frequently on the Universal Life Church page, not a one. Any new names are new accounts. But again every editor who has taken issue here has past connections to the ULC page. NOT ONE editor without past connections to that page has an issue with this page.

With no disrespect intended, but we need a neutral 3rd party review and also the same review of the other page Check out: WP:CONADMINJordanFrancis (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler - Correct me if I am wrong but RileyRickter's account was just created.

Metropolitan90 - Exactly and you've voted to remove the tags and reinstate the page.

This is an attack, NatGertler by his own self admission stated this was discussed on the Talkpage for the ULC, and it is because someone took down the ULC page. That was not us. This display is clear and rest assured this administrator will be checking IP addresses and noting the newly created accounts. It is wrong! This is a retaliation because of what some editors think we did to their precious ULC page.

Yes CFred it is about content, not about retaliation. What went down with the ULC page has no bearing on this attack of our page. Metropolitan has offered suggestions, and we've met those, we've also added other notable content. I think it would be in the best interest of all to remove this tag now, rather to bring an administrator in, because surely that administrator will take a much closer look at the other ULC page too. Wherefore it may not just be our page that is removed, it maybe the other as well.

I suggest to research Church of Scientology and what Wikipedia opted to do and I believe they will do the same with the ULC of Modesto. For the record as The Monastery has so diligently pointed out, I possess data bases for both the ULC Modesto and the Monastery of their Ministers which includes IP addresses. I will tell you right here and now there are matches I don't need to await an administrator.

We are not taking away from Wiki page, if anything we are distinguishing between the two and is in the best interest for all parties.JordanFrancis (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JordanFrancis:
  • Here is the edit where you deleted all of the information about the ULC, filling its page instead with information about ULCHQ]. Here and here are the edits where Pastorbodhi1 attempted the same thing. So your claim that that was "not us" runs into problems.
  • Your suggestion that the tag be removed and this AfD ended does not have a procedural basis. There clearly is not an extant consensus for such removal that would support a WP:SNOWBALL.
  • Your assumption that an administrator will take a look at the other page is not based in Wikipedia procedure (that other page is not currently under AfD, and even if it was, its likely a different admin would be involved in closing it).
  • Your statement that people should not want admins looking at the other page is bizarre; those of us who have worked longed and diligently on Wikipedia have not done so to avoid having the work looked at.
  • Your assumptions about why experienced editors are involved in this AfD isn't well grounded in fact nor in the history of edits.
  • Your belief that the admin looking at this AfD will be investigating IP addresses is not grounded in standard Wikipedia practices. If for some reason an admin were to be looking at the edits of IP users in this discussion, the only ones they'll find are this, someone taking the against-deletion stance.
  • Your claim that "not a one" of the detractors here wasn't a frequent editor of the ULC page has yet another exception; I just checked the thousands of edits that User:Blanchardb has made over the past year, and not a one of them was on the ULC page.
  • I recommend that if your goal is to prevent the deletion of this page, you ground yourself in knowledge of Wikipedia procedure and guidelines, and not in inventions and attempts to rewrite history. The administrator's job in the closing of an AfD is to find a consensus within the accurate arguments made on the basis of such guidelines. The considerable effort you're putting into painting an invented personality for those who disagree with you is not time well spent if preserving the page is your goal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


NatGertler - It was BlanchardB who initially did the change (revert) of the ULC Page, it was not us. Yes after BlanchardB did it, we attempted to revert such back after some one else undid what BlanchardB did. We put no NO redirect from that page to this page.

BlanchardB reverted and redirected the other ULC site initially, because he felt the two were the same and that the other was outdated, he saw the tags and because of that he made the change at his discretion. PastorBodhi1 nor I made this change or redirect initially and you know it.

After they were switched back BlanchardB started the deletion of this article for as he categorized spammy tendencies. You responded and corrected him as follows:

"**Actually, BlanchardB, this article does not appear to be about the Universal Life Church discussed in the other article (at least, if you catch it when the editors of this article aren't trying to overwrite that page with this one), but about a totally separate organization that has a similar name (a common situation in the religious world). --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

Excuse my mistake for not including BlanchardB. BlanchardB and Metropolitan90 are the ONLY TWO editors or administrators who have made no edits of the ULC page. But you yourself corrected BlanchardB and Metropolitan90 again has suggested to remove the tag and reinstate the page.

ALL OTHER EDITORS by your self admission has ties to the other ULC Page and who have played a major role and has had a keen interest in maintaining that page, which happens to be a competitor.

My contention is that they, as well as you NatGertler have ties to the ULC in Modesto, or specifically to Amy Smith Long. The same IP addresses show up in the data bases on ulc.net, ulcseminary.org, themonastery.org or ulchq.com They match including yours.

This prohibits you or any of these editors from remaining neutral in evaluating this page, you all have ties to the other ULC. The only two who don't BlanchardB and Metropolitan90

You may know who I am, but do not think for a minute I do not know who you are.

The only requests for deletion are coming from those with ties to the ULC Modesto. Yes BlanchardB initiated, but he initiated such for spamming, which you corrected.

I quote you: ":*Your claim that "not a one" of the detractors here wasn't a frequent editor of the ULC page has yet another exception; I just checked the thousands of edits that User:Blanchardb has made over the past year, and not a one of them was on the ULC page."

This quote of yours is an admission - you admit that everyone other than Metropolitain90 or BlanchardB HAS ties to the other ULC Page.

You further admit this assault of editors requesting delete of this page stem from retaliation, because you feel we redirected your page to ours. This is a war and you are the leader, quite apparent instructing these others to become involved.

Take away you and your pro ULC Modesto Ministers and there is NO issues with this page by any other editor that can't be fixed and that this page not be deleted. You are looking to delete it out vindictiveness, retaliation and to diffuse your competition. You have clearly admitted this in what you have posted hereto. You show your lack of neutrality and I believe an independent administer will see through your little games and frankly you are creating a bigger risk for deletion for the other ULC page.JordanFrancis (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors & Contributors - Allow me to clarify that I personally made no purposeful edits to any other ULC WIKI page with the exception of This WIKI page, The Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc., which has been in discussion here. It was my understanding that original Delete/Copy/Paste modifications to the Other ULC page was made by other WIKI Editors. This being noted, we could continue the verbal volleyball discussion in this regard, however, it is my contention and goal as an editor/contributor to attempt to keep an unbiased view and create an informative and professional WIKI page for the Universal Life Church World Headquarters; which is both succinct and meets the demands of an Encyclopedic page as defined by WIKI. To this effect, please note below the current and past edits/modifications I have done on the ULCHQ WIKI page. While It appears to me, personally, that there may be potential, definitive Editorial bias from other WIKI Editors, I could be wrong and, regardless, this should not interfere with the creation of a ULCHQ page so long as the page meets WIKI standards for creation. This should remain our focus and good faith edits to do so have been made by myself. I trust that collectively those individuals involved in this discussion to date, coupled with any new editors who add to this discussion in the future will refrain from personal attacks, assumptions, etc.... Now, returning back to the edits made to create a positive, verifiable, informative and unique page so as to avoid page deletion and create the recognition the organization I believe deserves, please note some of the modifications made which I believe add credibility to the site :

1 - Edited WIKI Page To Ensure All Information Was Factual and Unique To The Universal Life Church World Headquarters 2 - Added 3rd party references to the ULCHQ WIKI page as required by WIKI to show organizations merit and uniqueness including references made to the ULCHQ by the Honolulu Star Advertiser, The Better Business Bureau, the Olelo Television Network as well as reference to the ULCHQ own site (Doing So Is Often Standard Across WIKI pages. However as per WIKI guidelines, the ULCHQ site is not the sole reference point). Please note that these, along with the PR Releases as published and referred to, are valid references as they require verification outside of the ULCHQ as well prior to public posting, which was indeed accomplished. 3 - Created informative information for this WIKI page so as to meet WIKI standards of uniqueness and importance including the information provided on the ULCHQ home based credential courses and outreach programs including the WALMART food program (Which while available to any organization to sign up as a part of is only provided by the ULCHQ), the Youth Ministry (Which is unique to the ULCHQ) and the Children's Miracle Network (3rd Party Reference To Honors Certificate and Program Information is provided on the page) 4 - In all of the above information on the ULCHQ WIKI page was included with consorted attempt to avoid promotional bias.

All of the aforementioned asserted, as I have alluded to in previous posts, the ULCHQ page should be kept (Amended As Necessary) and not deleted. In part, this is true if only to differentiate between two very seperate organizations with very seperate and unique histories and current programming. The general WIKI public I would undauntedly assert researching the ULC in general will find provided information on both ULC pages, including this one very informative as they research the phenomena of online ordinations and online church ministries. Thank you. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler - I Cannot Answer Definitively Your Question posed regarding who may have been, "Using My Account..." As Far As I Know I Am The Only One With Access To My PastorBodhi1 Account. Regardless - We Move On, Hopefully..... copy and paste of previous comment removed .Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pastorbodhi1, this discussion is not like a spoken conversation - your previous comment is still on the page and readable, so it is disruptive to copy-paste a second copy of it here. For that reason, I've removed your second copy of your comment. Of that comment, only your point #2 is relevant to this discussion, because that's the only point that addresses the notability of this organization. However, almost all of your points there are incorrect- press releases do not meet WP:RS, nor does the Better Business Bureau or the organization's own web site. The newspaper articles you cite are not primarily about this organization. I propose an experiment to you. Make a copy of the relevant article in your sandbox. Remove all information that is not in one of the two newspaper articles cited. Now, look at the article. Is it still useful as an encyclopedia article? If the article is deleted, it will be only because there is not enough information in reliable sources to put in a useful encyclopedia article. That won't be any kind of judgement of the organization, but only a reflection of an encyclopedia's need to have verified information from independent sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, with things becalmed, let's do a quick run-through of where we stand. There doesn't seem to be any general support for this being the same organization or directly related to the Universal Life Church, so the original objection is moot, and I don't see much traction being gained by the suggestion that the articles be merged. So what we're left with is whether this subject meets the notability guidelines, and that's been argued with primarily these sources:

So I'm still not seeing notablity established. Am I overlooking anything? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ http://www.ulcnetwork.com/outreach-2
  2. ^ http://www.ulcnetwork.com/apps/blog/show/11825124-universal-life-church-walmart-we-offer-free-shopping-for-shutins
  3. ^ http://olelo.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=30&clip_id=25595
More