Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange paper reading

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. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange paper reading

Non-notable 'reading initiative'. asenine ^{say what?} 14:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no attempt is made in the article to assert notability Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to show notability per WP:N. The article lists a single reference which is a broken link[1]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the broken link was probably my fault when I tried to fix the formatting of the page originally. Additionally, I think I may have blown the Speedy Deletion as a recreation with my changes (sorry about that too).Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let the page stay. The link has been fixed. --Dbaughman0 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy-based argument for keeping it, or something that shows an assertion of notability? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bible-pushers with no assertion of notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Rnb (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Doesn't assert notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let the page stay. It has been organized, and now meets notability requirements. -- Jamaicagoose (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page still does not even assert notability, much less meet notability requirements. If I'm missing something, please let me know what. Rnb (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it assert notability? I see no reliable sources whatsoever. Simply saying "its notable" doesn't make it true. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this account seems to be an SPA dedicated to this page. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability whatsoever. Napsterbater (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per OhNoitsJamie. Merenta (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable program at a single church which is not even mentioned on the church's own web site. In addition, User:Jamaicagoose has added certain material to the article which is at best confusing and inaccurate: the youth pastor supposedly "began OPR with his first set of letters being sent to the students on May 15, 2008" and it "has become very popular with the kids at Bell Creek". It is still May 14, 2008 as I write this in the United States (where the church is located). Any program which won't begin until tomorrow can't have started yet, much less have already become popular with its participants. Since the program relies on the students receiving the Bible readings on paper via the mail, the students probably won't even receive them until ~~Monday, May 18~~ Saturday, May 17. Let's not jump the gun by describing the future as the past. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC) May 18 is a Sunday. Sorry, I made my own error in calculating when a mailing sent on May 15 would be received. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the date, I thought yesterday was the 15, my calendar was off. I am still new to this Wiki thing so I apologize if it's taking me awhile to grasp the "notability" concept on this website. We are trying to update the article to meet the standards, please be patient. Jamaicagoose (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standards for notability (WP:N) are still far from being met. There aren't any reliable third-party sources referenced. Since this is something that, according to the article itself, was invented less than a week ago, there aren't going to be any coming soon. The best thing to do is delete this and, if notability is established at some point in the future, re-submit it then. Merenta (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So when, exactly, did this program become very popular with the kids at Bell Creek? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not verified. (Oh, please be careful when using the expression "Bible-pushers" -- it could be taken as a slur!) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Utterly non-notable. A local bible study initiative started a few days ago. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to establish why it is notable beyond any other initiaitive to encourage reading generally. A reading initiavtive in a small town in the US does not make an notable article WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information and if this was not on the Bible (for example on Zimmer Men: The Trials of An Aging Cricketer) this AfD would not last more than a few hours and would likely be speedied. BigHairRef | Talk 11:04, 17 May 2008 (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.