Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible Training Partnership


 * 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. There seems to be a general consensus that while the organization exists, it does not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion at this time. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Bible Training Partnership

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I found nothing covering this organization. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can find no coverage about this organisation in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I have no idea whether this is notable or not. However, since it is in Nigeria, a dearth of Ghits would be unsurprising even if it was notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - indeed, systemic bias may be at play. However, the article makes the claim that they make use of an Australian college for training which doesn't seem to have attracted any notice.  Beyond that, the article doesn't really make any assertion of notability.  And finally, the web site does not appear to be functional meaning that we cannot even satisfy verifiability through a primary source.  I just had a look to see if there is even a hint of notability through unreliable sources, and the only hint this organisation might even exist is from this. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also found this cache copy of an article published by Oak Hill Theological College (p. 6) and a paragraph in another parish magazine. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging those up. I'm satisfied that the organisation exists.  I'm not convinced that those sources are sufficient to meet inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Sounds like a worthwhile organization, but it does not seem to have acquired any independent coverage of any significance. Fails WP:ORG. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2012 (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.