Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Church Development

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 G7 despite the disagreement below. The article looks ineligible because of significant edits by multiple users, but that's only because of the socking. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Church Development

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like original research for specific religions organisation promotion. Speedy was removed by newly created account with this sole edit. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also NCD International.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per ~~WP:G5~~ WP:G7. The banned sock accounts are now requesting deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Articles aren't generally deleted per the request of the filer, particularly when they've progressed this far. If the filer had blanked the page or requested speedy per G7 early on, that would be different. I'd rather not decide whether A7 applies to these two articles. The articles bother me more because they are clearly partial duplicates of each other. It feels like I'm looking at a cracked mirror. In any event, if you feel A7 applies to one or both, you should tag them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now responding to your substituted comment, G5 does not apply. The article has to be created by a sock after the block for G5 to apply.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. thanks. But @Bbb23: as no substantive edits were made to the article outside the sock IP accounts, their request for deletion could be honoured, could it not? Also, as for your "early on" point: this article was created just yesterday. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unseemly for a person to create articles, get blocked, and then request they be deleted. At this point, it's A7 or let the AfDs take their course.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me: I'm not even sure they were actually using those duplicate accounts deceptively or maliciously and should have been blocked. Anyway, you're the admin, not me, and certainly rely on your judgement. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2016 (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.