Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries


 * 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 keep. Improvements made to this article since AfD was first listed have moved the needle considerably‎ toward meeting GNG. That secondary sources such as British newspapers Metro and The Times cover its pronouncements as newsworthy‎ is indicative of notability and encyclopedic value. Also persuasive is that published books and reputable journals in various countries have written about the impact of the denomination's‎ teachings.  JGHowes   talk  02:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Mountain of Fire and Miracles
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable outfit in any way, certainly not via the GNG--just another ministry. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk</b>) 03:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as notable, not least for the adverse publicity which is cited in the article. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fayenatic, I checked again because I know you're no fool--but I just find it extraordinarily thin. The Pulse is generally acceptable as a source, but the two articles ( and ) are just short lists of chatty stuff, written by the same person, and without any in-depth discussion at all. This is dead (other articles from that publication are just trivial, reminiscent of what my local paper writes about some minor church service or event-- and ), and this, from some tabloid, can't be called news coverage. So I'm sorry, but it is hard to argue that this coverage makes it pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- Since there appears to be a networks of churches, not only in Nigeria but in Western countries where there is a Nigerian diaspora, this probably qualifies as a denomination, though apparently some of the satellites are seeking independence. The investigations may also make it notorious enough to be notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added more sources from newspapers, and Alexplaugh12 has expanded the article using some better ones from academic journals. IMHO it is well worth Wikipedia keeping this article, not least as a warning about the practices of this movement. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that there was a unanimous "Keep" decision at the previous AFD (noted on the article talk page), which I have just linked above. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable for the church worldwide expansion range and the size of its main auditorium for 100,000 people. JohnThorne (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per keep votes. HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.