Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vision 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. The promotional part seems to have been addressed by StAnselm. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Vision Forum

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Entirely promotional - no assertion of notability or reliable sources, only two scant references (one of which is tagged as unreliable, the other of which is a brief reference in an evangelical Christian source). Not encyclopedic. SuaveArt (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added references from the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Catholic News Agency. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  12:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – per Eastmain's new sources and many other that are available on Google News. It may need some cleanup/better wording (per nom), but the topic is clearly notable and the writing isn't even all that bad to begin with.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 19:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, and improve references. StAnselm (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to meet the requirements for WP:ORG (in neither its non-profit nor commercial guise). The given references are little more than promotional/PR pieces promoting debates/film events etc. and such  "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."   (NB One of the ref links opens a malware/phishing pop up window)  Without any serious discussion of the subject itself from reliable sources the article can only be seen as a promotional piece as per nomination. Lame Name (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added a criticism section to address the above concerns. StAnselm (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2010 (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.