Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity Explained


 * 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. Closed a bit early since consensus is clear. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Christianity Explained

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

PRODded by editor, but prod already contested in 2006. Concerns was: "no assertion of notability." It's a religious course written as a book, the article hasn't been significantly expanded since prior prod in '06. – Toon (talk)  22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * delete not notable per nom  Chzz  ►  22:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced advertising for this preacher and whatever he's selling.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--wow, this is unnotable and spammy. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this sorry excuse for an article.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:SPAM. South Bay    (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete That is quite a slice of spam. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing the notability here. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No notability here. fuzzy510 (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion or appearance of notability. John Carter (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —John Carter (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of WP:RS. Thought I found one here [] but the title is misleading and it is about a different but similarly named course.  FWIW it is surprising that there are not more RS for such courses, as I would have thought come critical comparisons would be helpful, but I guess that each sub-culture simply uses its own product. Springnuts (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - sounds very interesting, but nowhere notable as Alpha and Credo. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - spam with no reliable sources.  LadyofShalott  Weave  02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RS. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete per WP:N. — BQZip01 —  talk 17:06, 19 April 2009 (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.