Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Plumbline 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 was delete. Sandstein 07:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Plumbline Apologetics

1) The article is about a "cult buster" who is not notable.

2) The Website is not professional.

3) The information is biased and not neutral.

4) The User (Firstplubline) is advertising for his book business.

This page should be deleted. Sapienz 15:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete seems like an ad to me. Lurker (said · done) 15:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nominator was blocked tonight for posting personal identifying information about another user. As they have been involved in extensive harassment of that user, who may be involved with this organisation but who has never edited the article, I'm tempted to believe that this is part of a continuing campaign of harassment rather than a serious attempt to sort out the obvious issues with this article. Orderinchaos 16:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - While there is a prod tag on this article (along with others), it does not appear that the article has been properly nominated—there is no AfD tag on it. --Evb-wiki 16:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I swapped the tags. It is now nominated. Notwithstanding, the pov/point war suggested above, the article is unsourced and appears to be WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as I see no notability for this group Corpx 17:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, previously blanked by article's creator (and only significant contributor) but that blanking was reverted for some reason. Should be a speedy delete candidate. ugen64 17:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see no assertion of notability, and no evidence for it. MarkBul 17:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I attempted some cleanup of the article to try and address points 3 and 4. Voyager640 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - ad. Æetlr Creejl 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. All Google searches show they are self promoting, plus the name of the originator of this article is "firstplumbline" which is is advertising. Not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.149.78.242 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 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.