Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Fellowship


 * 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 Objections made at the time of the nomination noted a dearth of sourcing, and User:Roscelese worked on fixing that problem. There has been only one !delete since then, with an opinion that the additions were not "significant independent sourcing", although even that suggested an alternative course as a merge. Mandsford 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Family Fellowship

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails notability, has only original research, and uses only a single primary source.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for a lack of independant and reliable references which would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:GNG and also possibly WP:CORP. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as this looks like an attempt by the Mormon church to censor anything that they disagree with - just as they are doing with Temple Riders. Wikipedia is not censored. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- Biker Biker need to WP:Assume good faith and not assume all LDS members are the same. If you ask any commenter at Talk:Undergarment I am active in trying to maintain WP:NOTCENSORED when It comes to LDS article.  I nominated this article for one reason, and I still feel it fails Notability as stated.  To keep an article only  because a LDS member nominated it for deletion Bad faith.  I stand my by nomination, Fails notability, has only original research, and uses only a single primary source.  Addationally It also fails WP:PROMOTION since this club is so un-Notable the best anyone can come up with is one line and a link to the website of the group.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment noted, but we'll have to agree to disagree and I stand by my comments. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, here are a few other sources I found from a cursory look   And Deseret News periodically covers their forums. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added more third-party references to the article. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep I didn't check out the sources, but unless the article is a total hoax the group seems to have attracted enough attention to be notable. Far more than most Internet community groups of the kind. Jaque Hammer (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you didn't check out the sources then how do you know that this group has attracted enough attention to be notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 19:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Roscelese and a quick Google Books search. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep and move this is limp as an independent article, but worth keeping and moving to Religious motorcycle clubs . As an independent article, it deserves deletion, but compiled it doesn't. tedder (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment did you mean this as a vote on Temple Riders? Family Fellowship isn't a motorcycle club. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. I got distracted by something shiny, saw the relist notice, and assumed I knew what I was talking about. tedder (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge/Redirect to Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Doesn't really have the significant independent sourcing needed for an article. There are many references found at Google News but they are in passing - as in "so and so, a leader of the group Family Fellowship, said..." --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2011 (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.