Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godinterest


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Godinterest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:CORP. There was a flurry of churnalist coverage in May last year but nothing in anything approaching a reliable source since. Created by undisclosed paid editors:de:Benutzer:Bouake123/sandbox/PTF SmartSE (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now, unfortunately - This article was good (there are much worse articles) and at least had notable sources but unfortunately that is where it ends. A News search found results mostly recent press releases with a few news links including the May 2014 flurry. Books was not helpful at all but highbeam found some of the same results as well as thefreelibrary.com. Not much for notability at this time, SwisterTwister   talk  05:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think this falls under WP:BLP1E. Because There is, in fact, significant ongoing coverage. here, and here .  As the editors above say, the article is well-written and well-sourced.  I have added a bit about the April 2015 launch of a Godinterest Wordpress blogging feature for Christians sourced to Bloomberg.  I think it should be kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about BLP1E? The key words here are the 'significant' part of WP:CORP and the 'multiple non-trivial' part of WP:WEBCRIT. The religion news source is probably the best available, but it's a blog with little evidence of editorial oversight and hardly discusses the site anyway. The second link you've provided is to a press release and the 'bloomberg' link was also a press release. The current article is reasonably well-written, but is sourced terribly, which is why it doesn't belong. SmartSE (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I read your reference to the 2014 "flurry of churnalist coverage" as a reference to BLP1E. to me it looks as though there was  a second, smaller flurry of churnalist coverage in April 2015, with a Religion News Service blogger picking up on this  press release, which was also echoed on Bloomberg and some other places.  I think the amount of press coverage last year and this passes GNG.  But I see where some might not think so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I cannot believe that a website effectively one-year-old, linked to a denomination with non-orthodox views (such as Seventh Day Adventists), is notable. I do not thinhk that the fact that somnething is heavcily promoted makes it notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2015 (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.