Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Assemblies International (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 per below. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Christian Assemblies International (2nd nomination)
- Christian Assemblies International (2nd nomination) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
WP:OR filled attack page, deleted last week and recreated/speedy deleted again since then, each time created by a different single-use account (as were all the keep !votes in the previous AfD). The creator's removed the speedy tag this time so bringing it here. While I'm loath to suggest it about an organisation which patently does exist and does at least have the potential for a legitimate entry, then (assuming this AfD !votes delete) this may need to be salted to stop this recreate-delete cycle from going on forever - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not the same article from last week and is not an attack page it is just a fact page. There are numerous of links. Study before judge! If you are fair then give the sentences you do not find ok, pls.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.70.189.104 (talk • contribs). — 88.70.189.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Every single reference on this article either leads to a single forum which appears to consist solely of attacks on this church's leadership, or to pages from the church's own website which do not, on reading, back up the claims you make. The article is riddled with WP:WEASEL top to bottom ("It has been said", "Some claim", "It leads one to believe", "Many insiders claim" etc). It also makes potentially libellous allegations of sexual misconduct with no sources other than the aforementioned forum to back them up. Also, as far as I can tell this is identical to the article which was deleted last week other than the insertion of 'references'. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- further comment on actually reading that forum more closely, on the thread about this article the creator specifically admits it violates NPOV. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete G4 and salt. So tagged. Hedging a bet here, but close enough in my opinion. --Dennisthe2 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
