Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starving Jesus

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 keep (no consensus). Not the easiest of decisions here with 12d/5k which is frequently sufficiently strong for consensus, but I have registered that there have been significant attempts at improving the article during the course of the discussion. One of the arguments presented (unverifiability) appears to have been countered and I gather that a Google search which someone referred to does give some independent media mentions, e.g. this one. I am uncertain about notability here, but I will call this a no consensus based on new evidence surfacing over the course of the discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starving Jesus

Originally tagged as a speedy for "patent nonsense", but it's not. It does, however, seem to be very difficult to verify. – ClockworkSoul 03:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unsourced, unverifiable, non-notable, crystal-ballism, take your pick. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Opabinia regalis, surely we'll be the first to write about it when something exciting happens to these reckless fellas. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Searches actually turn up quite a bit regarding this one. Article does need some serious work. StuffOfInterest 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am more than willing to take any advice I can get. Also, I am searching high and low for a good Wikkipedia Text Editor. Derek C 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Opabinia regalis. Rohirok 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with Opabinia regalis's gracious homework. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOR. Lazybum 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still seems like nonsense to me. KnightLago 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. —Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Opabinia regalis --Wildnox 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have now added more refrences, an ISBN number and fixed the xxxchurch wiki link. This is in fact a real book written by a popular ministry which has been featured on ABC News. ABC NEWS Story Derek Cormier 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn book with a "human interest" angle, very cute, very today, very yesterday tomorrow. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Derek Cormier's new refs. xxxchurch is well known enough for their book to be notable, at least in some Christian circles. Book is selling on Zambooie [[1]], perhaps it's an indie pub? It would explain why it isn't in as many references. SuperJerms 16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn book BlueValour 04:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I've just wikified the article, so its in better shape now, and I've tagged it for cleanup. With Derek's references, it can be considered notable enough, and there are other less referenced book articles out there. --Draicone (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question This article still needs some clean up, but after reading Wikipedia:Notability (books) I believe this article clearly meets those proposed guidlines. How do I get the tag removed?Derek Cormier 02:40, 21 August 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.