Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Forums

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 Delete as unsourced. No independent outside sources were provided to establish the notability of this subject. Contact me if you think you have reliable sources and want the article userfied or restored. ~ trialsanderrors 17:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Forums

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Christian Forums (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Forum article with no sources. Some quick Googling doesn't find any either. Requested sources over 2 weeks ago, but no responses. Almost entirely original research and fails WP:WEB. Delete. Wickethewok 15:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I do believe that Christian Forums constitutes a notable topic. It has over 150,000 members and is generally recognized as the largest Christianity-related internet forum in existence (or at the very least, I've yet to see another Christianity-related forum that had as many members or that contested that claim). I also frequently see links to it on other Christian websites. However, I agree that it has serious problems with original research and verifiability (and probably NPOV as well). —Cswrye 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable, third-party sources are freakin' found. Recury 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article does not provide independent sources sufficient to show notablity. Edison 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sheesh, find somethng better to do with your time. This page DOES NOT satisfy deletion criteria. It IS a notable subject, since it is the largest site of its kind on the net. "Over two weeks ago". Are you kidding??? That is a drop in the bucket! Some of us have busy lives. Give it, and people, time, months even, for cryin' out loud. Apparently, per User_talk:Wickethewok#Whatever the user User:Wickethewok has a history of problematic deletion crusades. CyberAnth 16:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Rather than criticizing me and making vague claims, it would be more productive to find sources. This article has been around for 1.5 years anyway, its not like sourcing is a new thing. Btw, if you care to read the link to my talk page you posted, the discussion is not about me, but about another editor's deletion request on MFD, which I did not participate in. Wickethewok 03:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You stated in the link to the talk page section I posted, User_talk:Wickethewok#Whatever, "Some of my work has been the subject of bad faith noms in the past". With this page, given your arbitray and flimsy criterion of "two weeks ago" and "quick googling" with probably so vague a term as "Christian Forums", and your already shown to be wrong assertion that it does not meet WP:WEB, one has to wonder.
I only found the article a few days ago. I have already found a few sources for it but I am not going to have time to find more nor work anything in until mid-December earliest, early January latest, and there is no damage being done to leave the page until then. If you want to see the quality of my work in citing sources until then, see Christian_views_on_contraception#Protestant_Christianity. You should retract this request and remove the AfD tag forthwith. CyberAnth 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It is far more benificial to the health of Wikipedia to remove unsourced articles if they can't be fixed within the 5 day period. If you have sources, you should feel free to post them here if you are too busy - I'm sure somebody would be happy to write them into the article for you. If you can't post them now, then there should be no prejudice against re-creating a properly sourced article later when you do have the time. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but from where are you pulling out this 5 days stuff? The only reference I find to it is that AfD discussions should go on for 5 days. That time period is irrelevant to how much time a page with problems should be allowed to get fixed before AfDing it.

BTW, consider this fromWikipedia:Articles for deletion:

  • Consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}} or {{disputed}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.
  • Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.
  • Click "what links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  • Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted.
  • Familiarize yourself with the frequently cited guidelines WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT, WP:WEB and WP:VAIN.
  • Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

I am sorry, but I just did not see a good faith effort by Wickethewok to first do any of these less drastic things. It was one comment in the talk page probably nearly no one saw in its two week life, a {{references}} tag for a whopping EIGHT DAYS (!)...and then BAM, time to AfD!

Hmmmmm.

Also see User_talk:Wickethewok#Lost_Marine. In fact, User_talk:Wickethewok is just filled with complaints about the highly questionable AfD actions of Wickethewok.

CyberAnth 08:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep I'm the co-founder, Ryan Swift. What information do you need? How can anything in the history be verified at this point? Well, nothing is published, and many of the historical posts related to the history of Christian Forums is blocked because I'm blocked as a user, and any post I was in is subsequently blocked from public viewing (it's a long story)...so, I have private emails from 2002 between Erwin and myself that I have archived, proving much of the information that is "unsourced." Anyone is welcome to view them or have me email them. Unfortunately, being the co-founder with Erwin, I'm not sure my input now would still qualify to meet wikipedia standards because... heh, my stuff IS original research! So who wants it? Anyone want to care to interview me and publish on a website so that a third party source can be shared on the page? Kingdomgospel.com did exist at one time verifying some of the claims made in the history section. CF is notable, and I would ask any admin reviewing this AfD to consider to KEEP this speedily, and end debate on a ridiculous AfD. If someone wants sources, they can ask me. They can interview me. They can interview Erwin - the current leader of CF. inigmatus 05:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Any of us interviewing you would be original research and is not encyclopedic. Has any reliable source of information done an article about you, like a Christian magazine or something? Quite a number of other forums and websites have. Wickethewok 14:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
ATTENTION! It IS possible to use Ryan Swift as a reliable source: See this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_source CyberAnth 23:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
If it meets our verifiabliity policies. Recury 00:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Here ya go! http://www.seebs.net/log/archives/000373.html CyberAnth 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that doesn't. Recury 17:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Rather than complaining about me (which is quite inappropriate on AFD), I suggest you stick to the matter at hand regarding notability, sourcing, and meeting WP:WEB. Wickethewok 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nauseated Keep. That "Christian Forums" exists makes me feel physically sick - it horrifies me that there are people like that out there. BUT... they have a right to their beliefs, however stomach-turning, and this article appears to document them. WMMartin 16:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok... but what about sources? Wickethewok 21:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have provided some sources; some are "google cache of deleted threads" and the like, but the material is of substantial interest to a lot of people, and there are plenty of primary sources for a number of the claims. That some claims are hard to source doesn't mean the whole article is problematic.
  • weak Keep if, and only if, it can be rewritten to remove the unsourced claims and advertising-like tone that verges on, if it does not reach, a violation of NPOV guidelines. I am particularly irritated by the flat allegations that this "is the largest site of its kind on the net"; sez who? We Christians are a varied lot, we spend our time in lots of places. Until this Afd, I never heard of this forum. --Orange Mike 16:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Well known resource. Linuxaurus 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"resource"? Wikipedia is not a collection of links. --Orange Mike 16:05, 29 November 2006 (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.