Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Advent

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. JForget 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Advent

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: chronically unsourced stub, created ("just off the top of my head" and thus explicit WP:OR) with a built-in {{merge}} tag. Recently-added sole source, to John Beardsley's Biblical Discernment Ministries, is blatantly unreliable WP:SELFPUB. {{find}} reveals almost nothing on the phrase's use as a term of art representing a theological concept (and none of it "significant coverage") rather than a simple adjective-noun combination (i.e. 'First Advent' rather than 'first advent'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete clear WP:OR and WP:RS issues. Simonm223 (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not well sourced and confusing as well. Borock (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm scratching my head about this article. It says this is an expression used in Unification Church theology. I am a UC member and I have never heard it used by us in any special way that other Christians do not. Article is unsourced as well. The one source does not say that it is a UC term but just uses it in a normal way. A possible redirect would be to Jesus, unless there is a more specialized article on Jesus' first advent as opposed to his expected Second Advent. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: I don't see what all the rush is about. If you don't want to help me write this article, then move it to my user space, and when I have the time, I'll finish it on my own. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given Ed's already excessive number of user subpages (most of which are quite old and not the subject of continued development) and frequent MfDs of them (most notably the bulk WP:Miscellany for deletion/Ed Poor subpages), I would suggest caution in approving this request for userfication, per WP:SUB#Disallowed uses #3 & WP:WEBHOST. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Hrafn (talk · contribs), do not userfy, per above. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs work, but will lead to a good article - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.