Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City First Church (Rockford First 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 keep. Consensus that WP:GNG is met. (non-admin closure)  J 947  00:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

City First Church (Rockford First Church)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence from the sources in the article that this meets the notability standard, nor is there any evidence from a Google search for more sources. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - obviously, searches need to be made under the church's old name. But the coverage in Outreach Magazine means this is not a run-of-the-mill church. StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Churches this size are almost always sourceable. In this case, I ran a gNews search on the Pastor, who has an unusual name, here:  I'm am confident that there is more sourcing available.  The  Rockford Register Star is a WP:RS, but it is not the sole source.  Certainly, the article needs improvement and has a PROMO tone.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - the keep votes above do make some valid points however to be encyclopedic it'd need to be completely re-written as its sources are in my opinion unreliable. Probably delete then notify creator and suggest using WP:AfC.   Dr Strauss   talk  11:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DrStrauss, See: WP:NEXIST. And note that overstuffed and PROMO article son notable topics can be reduced to a stub.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that I have added 2 search bars with terms that produce persuasive WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have BOLDLY and ruthlessly reduced the article.  Let us pray for more good editors to improve this and other articles, across the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * (I also contacted major recent contributor, an SPA, suggesting that he read up on editing/sourcing Wikipedia articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist to solicit comments regarding rewritten article.
 * Weak keep - I don't see any problem with the sources at this point. In my opinion it meets GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - the topic already seemed notable to me, and the improvements have helped in strengthening that opinion. — Yash<b style="color:grey">talk</b> <b style="color:grey">stalk</b> 19:12, 8 March 2017 (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.