Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crossing Church (Minnesota)

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 no consensus. The two relists haven't resulted in any further input, so there seems little point relisting again. Michig (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossing Church (Minnesota)

)

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

Purely promotional article for a church. Nothing more notable than any other local church, except its ability to send out press releases. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Buried in the long list of mostly unhelpful references are a few that actually do appear to be substantive independent coverage, suggesting that the church and its style of ministry may be a bit beyond the
WP:GNG, and I couldn't find anything substantive from a non-local source, but if someone else turns up something like that, I'd be open to reconsidering. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Not sure at this stage: This doesn't come from a press release. It says the membership is 2000, which would make it a
WP:TNT - the article is a mess, with a long, unreferenced criticism section. St Anselm (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, the most recent attendance noted in the article is 2,400, which would make it a megachurch, and means it could be presumed to be notable. St Anselm (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Might not be run of the mill, but it needs more sources to say so. Fails GNG per above (all local, etc.). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - appears to pass at least one factor in my standards. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:19, 28 December 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.