Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obadiah School of the Bible

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 merge to Assemblies of Yahweh. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obadiah School of the Bible

no, single reliable independent source sufficient to establish notability, apparent WP:COI problems with article creators. This sect currently has a lengthy entry of its own which references this school, though that page too has no reliable sources. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see above Dalet School. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge to Assemblies of Yahweh. I have looked at all the sources, including the Assemblies website, and for some reason, I can't find a single mention of the Obadiah School of the Bible. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Obadiah School of the Bible is an integral part of the Assemblies of Yahweh ministry. Graduate Obadiah’s is a term exclusive to those who have graduated from the school and it deserves a mention so that over lookers can understand its purpose. Of course, whether one thinks that the AOY is notable or not will depend on whether they think these institutions are as well In Citer (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)— In Citer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I personally find the tag placed on In Citer signature as not only trying to poison the well but offense. I would ask that you remove it. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt have you read WP:SPA? If so, on what basis would you argue for its removal?

Comment - Are you saying that Citer is “…suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking”? That is an assumption of bad faith, which is extremely frowned upon. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*cmt no i'm saying he's a single purpose account which is what he is and that tag is apt for (practically designed for) AfD discussions.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please see discussion page that deals with this concern. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because In Citer is a relatively new user (November 12) does not make him a "single purpose account". The tag is never meant as a compliment, and I honestly don't see why the tag has been slapped on his comment. He is the creator of the article, if that's the point that someone is trying to make. But everyone is welcome to participate in the AfD forum. Mandsford (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to nom: Please be careful when nominating AFDs. WP:COI is not a valid reason to delete an article. You should familiarise yourself with the deletion policy. Best, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Zain Ebrahim: You should familiarize yourself with reading and reading comprehension, particularly as regards to reading the actual nomination, before offering your hollow advice. As i said: "No single reliable independent source sufficient to establish notability."Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go forth and Merge with Assemblies of Yahweh. The article reads like marketing collateral -- it could easily be sliced and diced into the AoY article without losing context. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:47, 10 January 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.