Talk:Christianity Explored

message: I notice the this page has previously been deleted as insignificant Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Christianity_Explored.
 
However, I think this course clearly is important. It is used by lots of churches, in several countries. As an indicator of the extent of the course's importance, note that a  Google search for "Christianity Explored course" (exact phrase) finds over 900 sites mentioning the course. -- BenStevenson 14:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had a look at the VfD archive, it seems that many people voted saying the article was "spam", an "advertisement", "a promo". I certainly didn't write this in order to promote Christianity Explored (I've heard of it before, but I have no involvement with it, nor have I attended a course); I hope it doesn't sound like an advert, either. I do think CE notable enough to merit an entry, and it appears that at least two people before me have independently started an entry (yourself and OneSalientOversight). If we're to delete it again, we should probably first hold a VfD based on notability, rather than the premise that this is an advert or prosletysing spam. It's featured in BBC news. I don't know for sure, but having perused the top 100 hits, I would suspect that a large majority of the 50,000+ hits for "Christianity Explored" on Google would be about the course. — Matt Crypto 14:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The course pops up in a couple of third-party sources: . — Matt Crypto 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Significance of Christianity Explored

message: I noticed that Christianity Explored had already been created and deleted twice - I think with two entirely separate articles - and I gather that the last to be deleted was a no-brainer deletion as a poor, spammy article with no assertion of notability.  I didn't seen it of course, since it was deleted.  It seemed odd that Wikipedia did not have an article on a significant course, so here this is.  It is an entirely new article, aiming to be properly encyclopaedic: not OR; notable, and with multiple, independent and non-trivial sources.  I am grateful to some of those who gave the earlier article the thumbs down for their comments on this article when it was in draft.  Of course, all problems with style or content are mine. Springnuts 08:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better than previous efforts (including mine from a year or so ago), not least because the sources are better. — Matt Crypto 20:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why re-create this article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christianity Explored. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120730021546/http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?64 to http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?64
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120730021546/http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?64 to http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?64
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified