The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply
There are maybe 20 mentions of Brighside Church, Michael Stowell, and/or the Blessing of the Bikes in local newspapers, but they are all routine coverage, and thus fail WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightside Church. Dbratland ( talk) 00:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply
P.S. Just kidding about the Satanism. Actually only maybe 60% of Wikipedia editors are Satanists. The rest are, of course, athiests. As to "these newspapers only do coverage on people of noteriety": that's absurd. By your reasoning, anyone who's ever been mentioned in a newspaper should have an article here. See WP:ROUTINE and WP:BASIC.
Don't delete. [duplicate recommendation from same IP] -larger masterplan of antireligious skulduggery here on Wikipedia. Isn't that a funny way to say that you are not showing religious discrimination, when you really are.
I'm not sure in England how the reporters decide what is routine and what isn't, but here in America it isn't routine reporting. It sounds like you are really grabbing for straws here to disqualify this article, when it has already been approved many times! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.209.171.178 (
talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
Delete: This article has nothing to do with Christianity. Has anyone checked the education references? [comment 22:05, February 2, 2011 by User:Jarnigin]]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply
There are maybe 20 mentions of Brighside Church, Michael Stowell, and/or the Blessing of the Bikes in local newspapers, but they are all routine coverage, and thus fail WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightside Church. Dbratland ( talk) 00:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply
P.S. Just kidding about the Satanism. Actually only maybe 60% of Wikipedia editors are Satanists. The rest are, of course, athiests. As to "these newspapers only do coverage on people of noteriety": that's absurd. By your reasoning, anyone who's ever been mentioned in a newspaper should have an article here. See WP:ROUTINE and WP:BASIC.
Don't delete. [duplicate recommendation from same IP] -larger masterplan of antireligious skulduggery here on Wikipedia. Isn't that a funny way to say that you are not showing religious discrimination, when you really are.
I'm not sure in England how the reporters decide what is routine and what isn't, but here in America it isn't routine reporting. It sounds like you are really grabbing for straws here to disqualify this article, when it has already been approved many times! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.209.171.178 (
talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
Delete: This article has nothing to do with Christianity. Has anyone checked the education references? [comment 22:05, February 2, 2011 by User:Jarnigin]]