Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harp and bowl


 * 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 speedy keep.An easily locatable abundance of source nullifies the argument advanced by the nom. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Harp and bowl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable style of worship, a Google search shows only this article or primary source websites. No in-depth coverage in independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'd never heard of this before, but GBooks shows significant coverage in numerous independent sources (e.g. ). Not sure how the nominator missed this. StAnselm (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are numerous books written on the topic and a lot more reliable content on the internet than may have initially found. It certainly needs to be better sourced, but it is notable and is a common form of worship in the International House of Prayer as well as the many other Houses of Prayer around the United States. Books by Dick Eastman and Mike Bickle cover the topic extensively. Someone just needs to do some work on the article. DoctorG   (talk)  13:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, as editors above say, sources are plentiful, it just needs a better article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per StAnselm. Plenty of coverage in Google books. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 28 September 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.