Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Life Assembly

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. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Life Assembly

Christian Life Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Despite a few mentions in the local media, I don't think this local church is itself notable per our guidelines at

• Keep - This church has received far more coverage than is required by our notability guidelines. In addition to the two books and eight newspaper articles currently cited in the article, a quick Google News search reveals plenty of potential sources for this article. Neelix (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This same editor (Neelix) has also created another church article that is similarly non-notable but over-cited on trivial matters
  WP:SPAM and questionable and rather trivial sources especially in the case of the New Westminster item where they're advertorial in nature. And an imputation of COI which he denies but it's a denial I find highly dubious. Wikipedia is not a community bulletin board, nor is it to be used for promotional purposes, and that's the only reason, in my opinion, these articles were created. I venture that a review of his other recent creations may demonstrate a similar pattern.Skookum1 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment I've now listed Five Stones Church and Heritage Grill for AFD as well. It does trouble me that the author seems to have created these articles only because of their tenuous connections with Tara Teng an article which itself seems extremely promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not sure that some of those news reports are sufficient to establish notability. They look to me to be the type that tends to report all local news because that's what readers want. It's as if I wrote an article on our local community hall because all the funerals and community events are held there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources for this article; surely these are sufficient to pass our general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment Those are all only the kinds of non-notable community news that does not establish notability, of the exact kind the CambridgeBayWeather is saying do not count. You should read
      WP:N again.Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • That is not true. See, for example, [1] and [2]. There are plenty of Google Books hits as well. Neelix (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The land deal is not relevant news to establish notability, the review/advertorial by the Sun's religion reporter is also not valid to establish notability. His job is to write promotional pieces. As for the googelbooks, self-referential cites from the evangelical movement are questionable and also do not establish notability....
          WP:SPAM citations. Part of a media and publishing campaign for a particular faith, little more. Notability is not about applause by believers and is not established by books written by them. Or Wikipedia articles, either.Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I see nothing in the relevant guidelines to suggest that these sources are not valid for establishing notability, as you have suggested. If the two articles I mention above are not considered valid, I cannot imagine a source that would be valid. Neelix (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For me this falls under
  WP:LOCAL must come into play. Mkdw^talk 04:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If the issue is WP:BRANCH, surely a merger is more appropriate than deletion. Neelix (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues are brought up in that proposal are

WP:NOTDIR of church buildings associated with an organization in Vancouver. If we had list articles for every church it's an indiscriminate list. Mkdw^talk 21:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

List of places of worship in Greater Vancouver would be appropriate. Neelix (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I wouldn't lead off with an

run of the mill coverage. Mkdw^talk 06:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I just had a look at the references. If the two books used as citations are by congregation members they're self-referential and not valid at all as citations. The 1980 Vancouver Sun article is not a link, can't be reviewed, and the content that it's used to cite seems to be misleading about what that article appears to be about, i.e. trivial bit of information about a land deal that there were political questions about re Langley. And what also got my attention was
  WP:TLDNR.Skookum1 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Neelix (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: Lack of signficant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The only mentions I can find are mentions in the local press of a trivial, tangential or routine nature, usually based on the groups own press releases and publicity materials, and books by non-independent members of the group. There seems to be some puffery and source massaging going on, as well as blatant promotion. As such, the topic falls far short of any of out notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete On the rule side: There is a lack of significant coverage in independent secondary sources. On the common sense side: There is nothing in the article that would suggest notability. --Bejnar (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2013 (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.