Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Christian Apologetics

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. Sango 123 (e) 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Christian Apologetics[edit]

Article is non-notable, original material, no sources, and possible vanity. It has no importance. The users to add to it/created it only make edits relating to the person who is claimed to be the founder. Arbusto 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbusto 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN, original material. While I think nom's gone over the top in his anti-Christian crusade, this article has all of five G-hits, the lead one of which is this article. Any time a Wikipedia article is the lead hit on a subject, it's suspect as hell. RGTraynor 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting concept. Needs expanding. --Keith Hernandez 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]
Comment This is a sock puppet of a banned user. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich for details. Arbusto 05:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while the topic interests me, unfortunately this article is nothing more than OR based on the work of a single person. --Hetar 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true. Look up "integrated apologetics", too. This concept is very well known. Books have been written on it. --Keith Hernandez 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]

And unfortunately, none of those books have contributed to this article, or have been cited in any way. --Hetar 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you rather just delete the article because it isn't as good as it could be? You must be a hardcore deletionist. If the topic truly interests you, as you say, then develop the entry. --Keith Hernandez 04:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that this is more than oin man's name for a thing. And the notability of that one man is open to question. Just zis Guy you know? 09:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. --kingboyk 10:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JzG, and someone should really explain to Gastrich that the more he sockpuppets, the less likely we are to accept Jesus since Jason sets such a bad example. JoshuaZ 17:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spent plenty of time in both apologetics and seminary, never heard of it. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. - WarriorScribe 04:53, 26 April 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.