Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Fellowship


 * 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. it's snowing. StarM 13:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian Fellowship and related redirect spamming

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems like evangelizing to me (or at least POV pushing/sermonizing), especially given the creator of article's name. Also please delete the redirect page to the CF page, its really subjective opinioning. Wikipedia is not google, or a place to place one's sermons. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Also, a number of passages are taken directly from http://www.victorious.org/felwship.htm, a possible violation of copyright guidelines. JNW (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Updated with more redirect spamming, if you see any other ones in new pages creation, please add them. I have no time to watch too long. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatant POV, evangelizing. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, yup, that's pretty blatant--not even an attempt at producing an encyclopedic entry. Why no speedy? Drmies (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Cause there's a deficiency of broad enough speedy tags (at least, that I know of/imo) for obvious but not always common cases and AfD makes it official if it's recreated. ProD usually isn't as fast as AfD (and isn't as reliable imo since anyone can remove it) &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article a bit and removed most or all of the previous evangelistic view points This edit is much more neutral in Its approach to express the contemporary view of Christian Fellowship, although It needs more Input with content of fellowship in the work Place, Schools and in the general public. In time other edits will perhaps provide and change the format and or different Christian views on fellowship ... Merry Christmas PAW  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiseandworship (talk • contribs) 05:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete evangelizing Clubmarx (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DeleteThis sermon doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Jmundo (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-encyclopaedic ramble from a pulpit. Is it snowing yet? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV pushing and preaching.  Matt  (  Talk  )   08:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As an active Christian editor: delete, non-encyclopedic, unreferenced, and not needed to resolve incoming links (I have just removed two that were not significant). - Fayenatic (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious unencyclopedic POV pushing. McWomble (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. ghastly images...non-encyclopaedic and unreferenced.  Teapot  george Talk  11:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrite - The name 'Christian Fellowship' is commonly applied to individual church groups, especially in workplaces and universities. It would be good to have a general article about this subject, rather than the opinionated ramble currently in the article. The others can all go, though. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrite changed to delete, see below. The term itself is notable but the evangelism has to go. Name change to correct capitalization, too.  Graymornings (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per the snowball factor. Regarding rewriting the article, a new article can be created after this one is deleted, but since this article has nothing worth saving, better to delete and rewrite than the try to "save" the article.  Theseeker4 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's christmaaaaaaaaaaaaaa- whoops, wrong queue. Unencyclopedic, POV, nothing much to rewrite, if it is required later the article can be recreated in a better fashion. &mdash; neuro(talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with theseeker4. Also, delete spam redirects either way, as they are ambiguous/spammy/subjective opinions (ex. spirit filled church? Really? How POV can that be?). Can we have a SNOW close already? &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  00:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. We can always recreate the article if we feel we need to. For now, it's non-notable preachin'.  Graymornings (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done for having another go, but it is still not a suitable article for an encyclopedia. My view remains delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2008 (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.