Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great commission 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Great commission church

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nom. I have no affiliation with this group, and it only caught my eye because I lived in the area for a while. When I came across this on new page patrol, it was all of 3 sentences with no references, and obviously soon to be speedied. I worked on it yesterday to see what I could do to save it, and am the main contributor in its current state. It was speedy tagged yesterday, but the tag was removed by the nom when it became apparent I was still working on it. I've reached out to the creator for any additional info s/he could provide, but have had no response. I would say, from an outside perspective, the main problem is pretty obvious: notability. Anyway, I gave it 24 hours to see if I could improve it further...but this is about the best I can do. Please do not consider this nom a vote one way or the other. David Able 18:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete for a lack of references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  00:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I tagged it, and untagged it when I was made aware that the bulk of the work had been done by someone from outside the Church, and that there was a chance for it. (Despite my track record of tagging for deletion, I would rather have an article saved.) I salute David Able for his valiant attempt here, and for bringing it to AfD. The Church is still perhaps a little young to have achieved notability (unlike certain other 'church' establishments of less good repute...). Unfortunately, merely existing and doing one's job isn't notable enough. Peridon (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just an ordinary church, really. The reference in the local magazine doesn't establish notability. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I commend the nominator for working hard to improve the article before bringing this to AFD. Alas, the sourcing in the article is insufficient to establish notability nor can I find any more. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Purely non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:32, 2 February 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.