Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazing Discoveries (2nd nomination)


 * 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. - § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Amazing Discoveries
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Second attempt to create an article on this organisation, which has recieved no mainstream coverage whatsoever & is therefore still not notable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a single independent source... --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It has just been created, it will take time to put in all the independent sources and build up the article.


 * Merge? How distinct from Walter Veith is Amazing Discoveries? Has Amazing Discoveries made a reputation for itself apart from Veith. Can this separate reputation be demonstrated? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How distinct is Joe Crews from Amazing Facts, John Boehner from the US Congress, Barak Obama from the Office of the President of the United States or that matter Martin Luther from the Lutheran Church. One is a person that holds the office currently or for a short duration, but he is not the entity or office. They are definitely very distinct, very separate, very different so I don't think merge is the direction that should be considered or taken, documenting what the entity is or has become versus just the office holder or speaker should be the work done, not merging.Simbagraphix (talk)


 * Delete. Lack of independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, no reliable sources. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 04:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment For disclosure's sake, I was alerted to this AFD by this comment on my talk page by Simbagraphix, which may have been a violation of WP:CANVASS. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 05:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)JaconaFrere asked about the request for input at the teahouse, and was told that requests as I did for input are considered legitimate, so long as they don't ask for a vote. I get numerous requests to assist in articles from other editors and that had never been an issue and this process is a bit new to me, so any quidance is appreciated.Simbagraphix (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This appears to be blatant canvassing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Yes, it is, as I already remarked at the other AfD concerned, the teahouse is wrong in this case. --Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I get many requests for input, I dont think the editors would be doing it if that was the way the rules went. Simbagraphix (talk)
 * Read WP:CANVAS, it clearly details what is acceptable and what not. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Every editor here was sent a message in one form or another, that is allowed.Simbagraphix (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2014 (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.