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.
This website article is unreferenced and does not assert notability per WP:WEB. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs work but it's only a day old. It is a valid site and a notable religion, I hope the AfD notice gets the authors to step up to the plate.Padillah (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My argument was more toward the non-hoax/"has a chance to improve" area. The question remains, will it improve? Padillah (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It's got references on the bottom, Mormonism is a notable / valid religion in the USA (I'm not but----freedom of religion and all that..) AFD rationale is not supported by the articleWe don't need no stinkin FUR!! 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fingers Crossed - hi, I'm the author of this article... it's my VERY FIRST attempt at a Wikipedia entry. I'd REALLY appreciate any tips on getting things up to spec.Goslinjoe —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pending a possible rewrite. As it stands, this page doesn't assert any notability for the site, and all of the refs are either primary sources or other Wikipedia pages. The only other references I could find were blogs pertaining to Mormonism. I say weak delete only because of the article's age. To the author: Please read WP:RS; I would recommend searching for reliable, third-party sources, and NOT using other Wikipedia pages as a citation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting There - (from the author) I read the Reliable Sources guide (thank you TenPoundHammer), and I've been updating my article accordingly. More to come, naturally. Thanks for your help with this. Goslinjoe (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Let's keep it for now. The author just started the article today. Let's give the editor some time to improve it. We can always revisit the subject later to assess notability once he's had some time to work on it. Dgf32 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dgf32, I too believe that an Article should be around for more days than I have toes. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:12, 1 March 2008 (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.