| Revision as of 04:01, 19 January 2010 editSeregain (talk | contribs)710 edits →The Skeptic's Annotated Bible← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:00, 19 January 2010 edit undoSuaveArt (talk | contribs)779 edits keep - bad faith AFD started by evangelical POV pusherNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Keep'''. I'm prepared to ] on this, technically it just about fails WP:WEB perhaps, but it's fairly widely quoted in blogs and on usenet and there are books written about it to try to counter it (even if they are self-published books.) However, the fact that the multi-million selling ] covers it confers notability, since this suggests that they consider it a key part of the internet.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. I'm prepared to ] on this, technically it just about fails WP:WEB perhaps, but it's fairly widely quoted in blogs and on usenet and there are books written about it to try to counter it (even if they are self-published books.) However, the fact that the multi-million selling ] covers it confers notability, since this suggests that they consider it a key part of the internet.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Note''' - Not much of a mention in that book it seems: . A tiny little blurb in a book that describes Jack Chick's website as "Hard-core Christian porn." Really? ] (]) 04:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | :'''Note''' - Not much of a mention in that book it seems: . A tiny little blurb in a book that describes Jack Chick's website as "Hard-core Christian porn." Really? ] (]) 04:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :Yes, really. And the fact that the site describes Jack Chick's site like that has nothing to do with this AFD. Your agenda is showing again ;) Essentially you're suggesting that because the site offends you, it somehow doesn't qualify as a reference, which is nonsense.--] (]) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| '''Speedy Keep''' - Based on Seregain (an evangelical Christian)'s contributions, I doubt that this AFD was made in good faith and is likely an attempt to ] views that he finds offensive (and his posts in this AFD further enhance my opinion). | |||
| For the record, his 1st edit on Misplaced Pages was an AFD for ], and immediately after starting the AFD, he removed a reference to the SSA from ] using a deceptive edit summary. These are just a few of his disruptive edits, mind you. I have a thread on ] that I would be happy to share. Thanks.--] (]) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:00, 19 January 2010
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
AfDs for this article:- The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources to establish notability. Only self-published and other unreliable sources. Seregain (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. In spite of the large number of "Keep" opinions in the 2005 discussion, this seems to meet none of the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Notability (web). A single author has written two books devoted to criticising the website, with extremely limited library holdings (OCLC 55846448, 57003612). Other than that, Google News Archive and Google Books find only trivial mentions of the website, saying no more than what it's about. EALacey (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note - The books in question are self-published by the author as well. Incidentally, the person who wrote those books got himself banned from Misplaced Pages a while ago for an unbelievable amount of sockpuppeting. Seregain (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Widely quoted in forums, widely criticized as irrelevant (therefore mentioned) on Christian apologetics sites (such as this one) but, according to Google, not getting enough in terms of scholarly attention to pass WP:WEB. -- Blanchardb -- timed 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- COI disclosure: I've been familiar with this website long before I joined Misplaced Pages. (I used to make sport of those who would throw arguments from the SAB, as it is called in many forums, at me.) -- Blanchardb -- timed 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm prepared to WP:IAR on this, technically it just about fails WP:WEB perhaps, but it's fairly widely quoted in blogs and on usenet and there are books written about it to try to counter it (even if they are self-published books.) However, the fact that the multi-million selling The rough guide to the internet covers it confers notability, since this suggests that they consider it a key part of the internet.- Wolfkeeper 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note - Not much of a mention in that book it seems: The rough guide to the Internet. A tiny little blurb in a book that describes Jack Chick's website as "Hard-core Christian porn." Really? Seregain (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, really. And the fact that the site describes Jack Chick's site like that has nothing to do with this AFD. Your agenda is showing again ;) Essentially you're suggesting that because the site offends you, it somehow doesn't qualify as a reference, which is nonsense.--SuaveArt (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - Based on Seregain (an evangelical Christian)'s contributions, I doubt that this AFD was made in good faith and is likely an attempt to censor views that he finds offensive (and his posts in this AFD further enhance my opinion).
For the record, his 1st edit on Misplaced Pages was an AFD for Secular Student Alliance, and immediately after starting the AFD, he removed a reference to the SSA from Ken Ham using a deceptive edit summary. These are just a few of his disruptive edits, mind you. I have a thread on WP:AN/I that I would be happy to share. Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Categories: