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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 04:53Z

Zac Poonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy-tag and prod-tag have now both been removed, still no real assertion of notability outside the subject's own website. Article is also in my view promotional of subject. StoptheDatabaseState 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subject does have notability on several counts. Contact me for more information. I am currently gathering more material. Feel free to edit, if you feel a particular subject is being promoted. --Loaves 23:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete as nom. I don't see any notability. For an individal to be notable they need to be renowned outside their immediate locality, and/or the subject of more than one independent published work. The guidelines are at WP:BIO. StoptheDatabaseState 23:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking into this I can see why you might have an argument that he is notable as a result of his 'customer base' in South East Asia. You need to source it in the article - I shouldn't have to do your sourcing for you by Googling its subject. I change my vote to Weak keep with sourcing, but prefer to leave the AfD open for consensus on this. StoptheDatabaseState 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Yes, from what I know, subject has notability per the specifications. Subject is renowned outside their immediate locality, including the U.S., Canada, Finland, and throughout the world. Subject has been published by independant publishing houses, including Tyndale House, GLS, Charity Gospel, etc. I believe this article fulfills the guidelines. If you need any information please contact me, and thanks again for your tips and your help. I will begin to source some of my findings. Loaves 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this thing totally needs to be re-written into an encyclopedic article. As it stands, it reads like a fundamentalist tract. SkierRMH 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Original version of the page is copyright violation from www.cfcindia.com/web/mainpages/about_us.php -- ReyBrujo 13:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources. I'll be happy to reconsider if someone finds some. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:29, 20 December 2006 (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.