Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans for Religious Liberty


 * 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 speedy closure, with no prejudice against an immediate trip back to AfD with a nomination by someone who actually wants the article deleted. I'm not going to comment on the bad faith, meatpuppet, and other accusations, but it's generally best to leave an AfD nomination to whoever does want an article deleted. In this case, Pan Dan indicates that he's giving the page creator(s) an opportunity to find sources, so no one seems to want the page deleted, just yet. As such, it is closed per WP:SK.--Kchase T 06:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Americans for Religious Liberty
This is a procedural nomination on behalf of for and his meatpuppet. I don't know why he wants it deleted -- neither of them will say. Instead he just plasters a blue tag all over it and by being rude. The King of Spain&#39;s beard 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note the exchange between His Majesty's beard and me on my talk page. I recommend speedy close of this silly nom.  Pan Dan 19:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * is that a keep vote? The King of Spain&#39;s beard 19:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Dude. Seriously. Decaf. I am no one's meat puppet; and if I were, I can guaran-damn-tee that I wouldn’t be Pan Dan’s. If you knew just how funny that accusation is to me (and would be to Pan Dan as well, I’ll wager), you’d be laughing now. Out loud. Wow. I’m honored to be part of your crazy crusade though. Incidentally; I don’t think the article should be deleted, just properly sourced. Hi! -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 19:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Because I'm enjoying the show. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pipe down, meatpuppet. You'll speak up when I say so.  (oops)  Pan Dan 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BABY WANTS CANDY NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW!!! And some beer. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and source. Group looks notable enough. --JudahBlaze 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WTFKEEP and source. Oh wait...was I supposed to talk? Not sure being a meatpuppet and all ;) -- Brian ( view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * KoS's Beard, just to make clear and expand on what I said on my talk page: I don't know whether this article should be deleted. The reason is, I don't know whether there are good sources out there.  I did a cursory look, found none, and that's why I put the tags on the article.  It is reasonable to think that the regular contributor/s to the article (in this case, you) are more likely to know where to find good sources than anyone else (including me).  The point of the tags is not to be rude or to defile the article but to alert the contributors that they need to find sources.  If you understand what I'm saying, please withdraw this nomination, because it is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.  Pan Dan 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems clearly to be a bad-faith nomination, although the article might be a candidate for AfD. Is there an admin around? Can this get closed?--Dmz5 05:49, 22 December 2006 (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.