Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Faiths Forum


 * 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 keep per WP:SNOW and bad-faith nomination. Non-admin closure. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Three Faiths Forum

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

Blatant advertising by Single Purpose Account Threefaithsforum - Rozenwigg (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Rozenwigg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per WP:WEB, WP:N Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's been here for some time, and doesn't strike me as blatant advertising at all (in its current form). The article at present doesn't state where this organisation operates or how big it is, so notability could be an issue. I note that the promoter of this deletion has only edited in this present context, which is not against rules - but possible a case of pot and kettle... The single purpose account edits by someone with a name that could be referred for admin consideration are not a reason to delete a long established article. Peridon (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per nom. This doesn't look like blatant advertising, and the SPA connection doesn't seem to be too relevant (let's call it canceled out by the SPA that nominated this). &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not quite advertising, but it could do with a re-write —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macromonkey (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 February 2009
 * Speedy keep nom by an SPA does not inspire confidence. I would have done a NAC on this myself but I guess there is a tiny chance that someone might !vote delete. r  ʨ  ana ɢ  talk/contribs 21:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per nom. Nomination for Single Purpose Account by a Single Purpose Account is just the pot calling the kettle black there...--Unionhawk (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep I ran a | Google news search, and came up with multiple references for this group, for example | this one. If the article is improved and referenced it should definitely meet notability guidelines. Wacko Jack O   10:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs a rewrite, but not deletion. The article's creator is not relevant to the subject's inherent notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. EagleFan (talk) 01:27, 23 February 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.