Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bacolod Evangelical Church


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Bacolod Evangelical Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion of notability whatsoever. A local church without RS covering it. Kbabej (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found no reliable sources in the 7 google pages for this topic, but there might be some promising stuff in print books... Seems like a historical church, but no evidence of notability can be found online. Awsomaw (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The majority of the article is on the origins of the church. This is of some interest, but apart from this it appears a NN local church with a substantial membership.  I suspect that there are RS for the history.  I wonder what the local language WP says, but unfortunately I do not know Talagog (or whatever other language).  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sources in the internet about the church are hard to find. It was covered in a regional newspaper, where it briefly talks about the church's history. A part of this book mentions the renovation of the church's chancel. A part of this book mentions the church holding a general assembly and conceptualization of the Baptist centennial celebration. A part of this book mentions the church as the owner of a building. With these reliable sources, I believe the article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 07:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Every book source mentioned is just that: a mere mention. BASIC states "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I don't believe the bar has been met here. We have a local newspaper article, then a smattering of mentions on coverage of other subjects. --Kbabej (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D My Son  05:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as the regional newspaper piece is significant coverage and there are book sources but I cannot access them but I will say that Google book snippets are not always reliable as to the breadth of coverage in the publication, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In each of the book sources listed above, the snippet shows the mention. It also shows there aren't multiple mentions per book (ie: thirty times in a chapter, as there would be if they was SIGCOV), leading me to conclude they are indeed only mentions. That essentially leaves us with one local article. --Kbabej (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: setting Notability issues aside, a browse of its article history reveals it was once tagged for immediate deletion (Nov. 2015) because of its promotional tone, and a tag at the top of the article indicates that one of its main contributors "appears to have close connection with the subject." True to that, the user was warned twice regarding the immediate deletion because the article violates neutral tone (i.e., using commercial tone for the subject). Despite revisions made by various editors from that time until now, the relevant warning tag above the article still exists. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My vote is delete since the article was originally meant to be promotional as per its history, and the promotional tone still remains since the tag above the article ("appears tp have close connection" thing) still exists despite several fixes and overhaul. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to only having a single in-depth reliable source and therefore failing WP:NORG. Unless someone can come up with another one, but it's been two weeks now without another one coming to light. So, I think it's a safe bet that one won't appear. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BEFORE shows only WP:ROUTINE coverage, does not meet addresses the topic directly and in detail.  // Timothy ::  talk  19:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments - its possibly notable by my standards, but we still need significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG, a search on google news turned up quite a few hits. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.