Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All faiths religious movement

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 speedy delete. Author Blanked Page  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All faiths religious movement

All faiths religious movement (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)

Contested prod. Spontaneous, not notable religious movement. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 05:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly non-notable. Aside from the fact that no reliable sources can be found anywhere, this looks to be a purely a promotional article. The article says "The All Faiths Movement was birthed out of the desire of a simple theology student to begin a religion that absorbs all religions..." and "This movement was born on 12 January 2010." In other words, this is apparently a theology student's idea, which they proceeded to write an article about (under the username User:Allfaiths, which reinforces speculation of a conflict of interest and pure promotion).Swarm^Talk 07:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My post is not promotional as explained in the discussion section. John Wesley was a student at Oxford when he started the Holy Club which became Methodism. Your argument is therefore invalid.Allfaiths (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail the see the logical progression of how John Wesley's founding of Methodism makes your article non-self promoting.Byjupiter (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, obviously, per WP:NFT.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, this is shameless self promotion. If this movement does catch on and become noteworthy, then it would merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Simply put, a religious movement birthed yesterday could not have generated a following or garnered enough attention to be noteworthy. Byjupiter (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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.