Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C21 Online
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 delete. Theclear consensus was delete. If it becomes possible to write an article on "Church in the 21st century" the website could be mentioned in a sentence or so, but that's hardly a merge, nor would a redirect be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- C21 Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable special project by Boston College. No evidence of any WP:Notability. The main article, Church in the 21st Century, was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church in the 21st Century--GrapedApe (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- Surely we do not allow articles about websites, unless they have very large usage figures indeed. However it appears to be an aspect of Church in the 21st Century - a program with an exceessive grandeloquent title, and should be merge there, if that article is kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we have articles about websites if they meet WP:WEB. This requires coverage in reliable sources, and has nothing to do with usage figures. This website doesn't meet that standard though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of coverage in reliable, independent sources - there's sources at Boston College and a few mentions on Catholic websites but not important ones. College newspapers/magazines might be reliable in some cases, but they're not sufficient to show notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, seriously, how could the website of an organization that was deleted in AFD possibly be notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2013 (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.