Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theology Online

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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theology Online[edit]

Theology Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable web forum. Very poorly sourced; most is from the primary source (the site itself) and the ones that aren't, still aren't sufficient. Also wary of it being web promotion . . . this was once temporarily speedied, but failed and followed by an influx of fresh accounts making promotional comments on the talk page. In the interests of full disclosure, any of my personal beliefs were not factors into nominating this. -WarthogDemon 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Copious ghits but not one iota of notability per WP:WEB TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a notable web forum in the theological/religious arena. Mr. 5020 (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything that meets any of the WP:Web criteria. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WEB guidelines. Also has zero independent, reliable sources, so fails WP:V - for all I know, this could simply be yet another web forum like a million others. --Minimaki (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-The content of the article is certainly very POV-based. It also goes against WP:SOAP, although it may not be intentional. The article also cites Wikipedia as a source. Additionally, the sources are very small in scope. It does not fulfill WP:N nor WP:CITE. Perhaps, with a major cleanup...--Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:27, 21 March 2008 (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.