Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Life Church Melbourne


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 01:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom Life Church Melbourne
Was proded a couple weeks ago, but the creator then disputed the deletion. S/he hasn't made any changes since then, so here's the AFD. I say delete; an insignificant church. --Spangineer[es] (háblame)  00:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete there is nothing additional to the fact that it is a church.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Over a week after a disputed prod is plenty of time to institute some sort of signifigant changes. Darquis 01:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable church. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  ) '' 01:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. Doesn't assert notability.  Google has no media/press references, just church directories.GRBerry 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete is a prominant church in the area, but by no means notable in the wiki sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Librarianofages (talk • contribs).
 * Delete - wikipedia is not free web space. This is an advertisement. - Richardcavell 03:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Surely there is a List of AOG Churches or something like that? MyNam e IsNotBob  04:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn church. --Ter e nce Ong 04:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. -- ReyBrujo 04:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A search of an Australia New Zealand database came up with 0 references and there is nothing in the article establishing notability. Capitalistroadster 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NN. Sorry Guy 05:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but only if it can be verified as prominent in the area. Tyrenius 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. --Roisterer 11:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Full disclosure - I prodded it.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 13:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, doesn't sound particularly notable. J I P  | Talk 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Question what is it that makes a church inherently non notable and a school inherently notable? Jcuk 17:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete—cj | talk 05:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this goes, so should St Matthew's Church, Kensington, which was only ever permitted on account of no consensus.—cj | talk 05:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I added it thinking it would extend Wiki's coverage of AOG churches (there's no formal list of AOG churches as suggested by [user:MyNameIsNotBob]. However, if there is consensus that it is not adequately notable (as it's clearly a brand new church), can I store it somewhere until events occur that change this?  Visitpaul
 * Sure, just put it on your user page for now and let's hope things change quickly and you can bring it back.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable and no inherent notability -- Samir  [[Image:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg|20px]]   (the scope)   धर्म  07:25, 3 May 2006 (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.