Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outreach Red Bank

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 of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach Red Bank[edit]

Page author objected to prod and so I'm bringing it to AfD. The subject is a non-notable religious youth group; the author himself here describes the group as having around 100 members and seems to suggest that the group isn't particularly important, telling us that "there are some things just too miniscule and trivial to fight". Because he also says that, if this article is deleted, "[he]'ll create another one" and that "[We] can't stop [him]", I suggest delete and protect. Joe 20:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable organization, only 90 Google results [1] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable organization. Also, a redirect exists at Outreach Redbank; can this be deleted at the same time? —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominate the redirect onto RfD --TBC

^{??? ??? ???} 20:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect. Definite POV pushing going on. If the group is self-admittedly nn, and the author is going to keep recreating said article "because he can", it's not worth the hassle to allow it to go unprotected. MSJapan 00:49, 27 March 2006 (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.