Talk:Church of Divine Science: Difference between revisions

Distinct denomination

Divine Science (DS) is a distinct denomination of the New Thought churches with connections to some notable perosns who may have entries here (see below) and at the very least deserves a stub although I am certain a full encyclopedic article outlining their specific doctrines and their differences from other New Thought (NT) churches can be developed. I will do so when time permits (sadly not soon). If someone more versed in DS teachings and their variances from other NT teachings would care to procede I would be happy to help if I can.

Initial supporting reference: "In contrast to Religious Science which draws heavily on the teachings of Christ but does not call itself a Christian denomination, Divine Science, like Unity, is a Christian denomination that teaches practical, reasonable living based on the omnipresence of God." -- http://divinescience.com/ds_history.htm

WP biographical entries related to Divine Science

• Malinda Cramer
• Nona Brooks
• Emma Curtis Hopkins
• Myrtle Fillmore
• Charles Fillmore
• Joseph Murphy

Low Sea (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

References were deleted

I am puzzled by the edit history for "Revision as of 20:48, 2008 February 9" [1] showing that the references were deleted and then an unreferenced tag was added ... I would like to believe this was an honest mistake. Low Sea (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And this dif shows that these near-useless 'references' had been dumped into the article mere minutes before, and the pre-existing unreferenced & notability templates deleted. Given that they were introduced long after the article was created, and no effort was made to provide inline citations to them, they were of little value in verifying the article's contents (see template:nofootnotes). In any case, they were all to sites associated with 'Divine Science', so did nothing to establish its notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, please explain the logic? I am asking as someone trying to understand how WP works. Here is what I see...

1. An article is tagged saying please provide references.

2. Someone edits the article, provides references, and deletes the tag.

How is this sequence of edits wrong?

On the notability issue please see the WP page on Joseph Murphy, prolific author and head of one of the (historically) largest Divine Science churches. While it is true that Divine Science does not command the congregation it once enjoyed, neither do the Quakers so current status should not negate historical notability. Low Sea (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE gives information on how to correctly reference sources. Inline citations provide a method of linking specific sources to specific statements, allowing them to be verified from these sources. Just dumping a pile of 'reference' links at the end means that the reader has no way of making such links, making verification virtually impossible. WP:NOTE & WP:ORG give information on how to establish notability generally and for organisations, respectively. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing an extensive bit of reading on the WP Guidelines you provided above (as well as related WP Policies) and I thank you for pointing me in those directions, it has been very educational. However now that I have aquired this knowledge I am even less comfortable than before with the way these edits were handled. Please understand that I am not criticizing you personally but I have some serious disagreements with the specific actions you took on this article. As I intend to edit this page and several related pages would you be willing to help prevent problems by discussing my concerns so that we can try to come to some kind of agreement on best practices for editing such articles?

If you want to recreate this article, there are two things you need to keep in mind:

1. You will need to establish notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." None of the 'references' dumped into the article in the edit whose reversion you are disputing meet this standard, so they made no difference to the decision to redirect.
2. You will need to provide sources for the statements (restored or created from scratch) that provide sufficient specificity to allow verification. Template:Nonspecific gives a clear indication that lack of specificity is unacceptable under WP:V.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't just delete an article like this, Hrafn

Hrafn, you cannot delete just this article as you did here, without running it thru the WP:AFD. That is not an allowed use of a redirect. Please refrain from that sort of vandalism. Thank you, Madman (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop making FALSE accusations that have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER in policy Madman2001

This is a gross violation of WP:AGF. Please read template:notability: "If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion." Per WP:GAFD, a redirect is one of the things to consider "Before nominating an article for AFD" (my emphasis). Please refrain from making further baseless accusations! Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, you cannot delete an article thru a redirect. WP:GAFD says only that you should "consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted." It is most certainly not a "useful redirect". It had the effect of deleting the article. Madman (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A decision to redirect is not a deletion. See WT:AFD for more. Rossami (talk)