Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Write Open Story

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. Walton^One 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Write Open Story

I don't understand what the title has to do with the article, but I do know that "Flying Bibleman" only gets 11 Google hits. Doesn't seem particularly notable. Corvus cornix 02:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. When I first did the Google search, I got 11 hits. When I click on that link, I get 52 now. Corvus cornix 02:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now I get 8. :) Corvus cornix 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a mildly interesting story, but not encyclopedia-worthy; perhaps a footnote to a broader article on the history of efforts to carry Christianity or other religions to natives. --JohnRDaily 02:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an interesting story which appears to have a historical background. With a good rewrite/downsize and general clean-up, its importance should show through. --Stormbay 03:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INTERESTING isn't a valid keep criterion. Corvus cornix 03:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename. The article's name appears to have nothing to do with it, so it should probably be called "The Flying Bibleman". A few additional references would probably help its cause for notability, too. spazure 07:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The title is bizarre, but beyond that, there is no assertion of notability per WP:ORG. Eusebeus 12:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. I'd also like to propose that any article in which "Humble Beginnings" appears as a heading be subject to speedy deletion. Deor 16:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has some reasonable sources. If one looks past the length and the writing, it may seem less like a delete and more like an article worth saving with some good editing input. I find a sufficient level of notability in the sources but agree that the article reads badly. --Stormbay 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the Flying Bibleman Web site, the only substantive sources I've found (and the only ones linked in the article) are on the site of the Bible Society, with which the FB is affiliated. I'm not seeing any reliable, third-party published sources. Deor 22:50, 12 July 2007 (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.