Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Christian Network


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Global Christian Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced article about an online social networking community, which makes some advertorialized claims of potential notability but entirely fails to reliably source them. One of the references here verifies the tangential fact that Microsoft released an SQL update in 1996, but completely fails to verify this article's claim that the "Global Christian Network" had anything to do with it -- and the only other sources here are its entry in its home state's business registration directory and an SEC financial report, which are primary sources that do not support a company's notability. In addition, this has been getting incorrectly conflated with Global Christian Network (broadcaster), an unrelated television broadcaster whose notability isn't being properly demonstrated either: that topic has been revert-warred in the past between a standalone article about it and an incorrect redirect to here, and even the direct inbound links to here were, literally right across the board except for its entry on the GCN disambiguation page, also expecting that rather than this. A business does not get an automatic free pass over WP:CORP just because it existed, but there's no sourcing here that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Notability is not temporary. Assuming the content is true, this could have been notable in 1996-2001.  Notability does not disappear by the subject being taken over.  It would be helpful of the article said what company took it over.  It looks as if it was one of many things that were over-hyped  in the dot.com era and then disappeared.  Certainly, this needs references, but that is a reason for tagging for improvement, not for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary, but it has to be properly established in the first place before it exists at all. Lacking references is not necessarily a reason for improvement tagging over deletion — an article could certainly be kept if somebody could show the evidence that the sources required to properly establish its notability actually exist, but simply theorizing that maybe the proper references might exist, without actually undertaking any attempt to actually find out one way or the other whether they really do or not, is not enough to get a poorly referenced article kept. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - a few passing mentions but not significant for establishing notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:WEB and significant RS coverage not found. Promo 'cruft and no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2018 (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.