Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Apostolic Reformation

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 Speedy delete both NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Apostolic Reformation[edit]

Agreed with the tagger that db-spam is warranted, but I'm making a judgment call that the end result will be better if I take this through AfD. That might help to get the message across, and if not, it gives us G4 in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete - blatant violation of neutral point of view guidelines. No indication of notability or sufficient context to create a stub from the content of this article. At the very least it would require a full rewrite. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'd support speedy deletion per db-spam or snowy deletion as soon as consensus is clear. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonnotable, NPOV, gets one more !vote of support. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, John, could I ask a question? I added this to the "list of Religion-related deletion discussions" instead of "Christianity" on the theory that some Xians might be offended by the association ... good call or bad? - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No reason not to list them under Christianity that I can see. The author is clearly attempting to write about Christianity. GRBerry 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Unencyclopedic, and - far worse - barely coherent. Hairhorn (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete both, now. Smell test says these two articles are a very unkind parody or satire of Christianity rather than a serious attempt to write an article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Delete of both articles. Wholly unencyclopedic, unsourced, spammy. No need for discussion here. Cazort (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think we have any use for these, even assuming that they are intended to be articles compliant with our policies. The phrase "New Apostolic Reformation" is used by a few charismatics. Thus, I think that our existing unsourced article New Apostolic Reformation should be reviewed but not included herein. On the other hand, I can't see anything to make me believe that the phrase "Apostolic Reformation" by itself has any meaning as a noun and thus that it can't be the subject of an encyclopedia article. The phrase "Kingdom Dominion" is used in many different uses by Christians, from financial activity to dance!?!?[1] I don't know if there is an article that could exist at such a title, but what is there is not helpful. GRBerry 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now speedied both per db-spam. I can't close this AfD since I opened it, but I can make the db-spam call since I was the one who temporarily declined the tag. Someone uninvolved should close, please (or not, if you disagree). - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply regarding "No need for discussion here" above: occasionally, an article feels like an attempt to communicate "the truth" ... about religion, multi-level marketing, whatever. In these cases, my feeble db-spam deletion is unlikely to have any impact on the future choices of the article creator, so I'd rather do AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 25 June 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.