Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Group fails WP:N and the few references provided fail WP:RS. The group is too small and obscure that it is impossible to find any reliable sources to verify the veracity of any information. All we have is a first-party blog site and a few youtube videos uploaded by the group showing three or four persons at the most. Hosting the article in this state does nothing but advertise the group hence amounting to WP:ADS. Shannon Rose (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Without additional sources, this would seem to fail WP:ORG. The sources definitely do not meet WP:RS, as most of them are blog entries, and the Yahoo group has exactly 2 postings, both of them being the same press release as is featured in the blog sources. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Information about the group will be published in the new edition of Steven Shields's book (listed in the references). That book was expected last year, but still has not been published and the date as it stands now is unknown, possibly won't be until 2010. Which leaves us with nothing as far as RS goes, really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this page should be kept, as it gives further information about this new group of the church. Matthew Philip Gill is the leader of that new organization and that makes him notable. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The existence of multiple sources independent of him by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that document him in depth, would be what would make him notable.  It's the same criterion that is being applied to this subject. Uncle G (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article does not meet WP:RS and WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If thais article does not meet WP:RS or WP:ORGstandards,then these other pages should also be proposed for deletion Whitfield Parish Glossop Derbyshire Village Mission Church of Jesus Christ (Bullaite). Please let me know if multiple pages can be added to this discussion.  thanks. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. That's the long-since-debunked "If article X then article Y." argument.  Those pages should be nominated for deletion if they, on their own merits, do not satisfy the sourcing and notability criteria.  And of course a nominator should make the proper efforts to find out whether they do, in fact, fail to satisfy those criteria, before nomination, per Guide to deletion, Deletion policy, Articles for deletion, User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, and others. Uncle G (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncle G ' I do understand what you are explaining because I read it in the Wikipedia rules. But still I have  mentioned those articles because I searched in the Internet and also read them, and they have the same paramenters as the one in this discussion.  Therefore my question still stands, if I can nominate those for the same reason in this discussion.  I received an explanation from user Shanon Rose that it is posible to do so, and she provided a link which explain how to do it but,still not sure if it could be included here.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, may I please answer your question? No, they cannot be included here. If you want to nominate them for deletion then you have to create an AfD for each one of them. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bundling multiple different subjects into one AFD discussion invariably results in a train wreck of a discussion. If you've done the research and, based upon its results, come to the conclusion that those subjects, on their own merits, do not satisfy the sourcing and notability criteria, then you are welcome to nominate them.  But separate discussions from this one are the way to go.  And make sure that you explain what you found when you went looking for sources, so that your nomination (a) is useful and (b) makes a good case that has a strong foundation in deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —Shannon Rose (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — LadyofShalott   Weave  04:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable and full of unverifiable information. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment if deleted, redirect to the LDS article, as plausible misconception of the name. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's hard to judge whether this has made news outside of blogs, because Matthew Gill and Philip Gill turn up other people as well, and there seem to be no news hits on "Matthew Philip Gill". I don't see any proof that this has attracted notice for those of us who aren't associated with the "Latter Latter Day Church" Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'll admit that I am looking for a reason to keep this article (identifiable communities like splinter religious sects should be notable), but after looking at this article from several different angles, I can't help but suspect this is nothing more than a single congregation of (at most) a few dozen people with limited name recognition even in their home town. Thus it is indistinguishable from a case of self-promotion. -- llywrch (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as notability is not established. Should notability later be established, article can be recreated then. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2009 (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.