| Revision as of 18:16, 25 April 2006 editTijuana Brass (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,513 edits →[]: Delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:53, 26 April 2006 edit undoWarriorScribe (talk | contribs)1,372 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom and JzG, and someone should really explain to Gastrich that the more he sockpuppets, the less likely we are to accept Jesus since Jason sets such a bad example. ] 17:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom and JzG, and someone should really explain to Gastrich that the more he sockpuppets, the less likely we are to accept Jesus since Jason sets such a bad example. ] 17:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. Spent plenty of time in both apologetics and seminary, never heard of it. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom. Spent plenty of time in both apologetics and seminary, never heard of it. <b>]<sup>]-]</sup></b> 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''', per nom. - ] 04:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:53, 26 April 2006
Integrated Christian Apologetics
Article is non-notable, original material, no sources, and possible vanity. It has no importance. The users to add to it/created it only make edits relating to the person who is claimed to be the founder. Arbusto 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Arbusto 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as NN, original material. While I think nom's gone over the top in his anti-Christian crusade, this article has all of five G-hits, the lead one of which is this article. Any time a Misplaced Pages article is the lead hit on a subject, it's suspect as hell. RGTraynor 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting concept. Needs expanding.--Keith Hernandez 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet- Comment This is a sock puppet of a banned user. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich for details. Arbusto 05:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: while the topic interests me, unfortunately this article is nothing more than OR based on the work of a single person. --Hetar 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't true. Look up "integrated apologetics", too. This concept is very well known. Books have been written on it. --Keith Hernandez 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
- And unfortunately, none of those books have contributed to this article, or have been cited in any way. --Hetar 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- So, you rather just delete the article because it isn't as good as it could be? You must be a hardcore deletionist. If the topic truly interests you, as you say, then develop the entry. --Keith Hernandez 04:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
- And unfortunately, none of those books have contributed to this article, or have been cited in any way. --Hetar 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I see no evidence that this is more than oin man's name for a thing. And the notability of that one man is open to question. Just zis Guy you know? 09:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and others. --kingboyk 10:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and JzG, and someone should really explain to Gastrich that the more he sockpuppets, the less likely we are to accept Jesus since Jason sets such a bad example. JoshuaZ 17:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Spent plenty of time in both apologetics and seminary, never heard of it. Tijuana Brass 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. - WarriorScribe 04:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)