Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Coast 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   Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

North Coast Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not cite sources. It is also written without npov Trrytv (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ???? No sources in the article? Im sorry, but perhaps you need a change of specs. Or eyes. The problems brought up in ur argument does not require deletion, just simple clean-up. Plenty of sources available, please see WP:BEFORE, and I'm going with Speedy Keep. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Overtly passes WP:GNG with significant regional coverage in reliable sources, including The San Diego Union-Tribune and North County Times. See North Coast Church/News articles for numerous sources already in the article. Afd is not clean-up. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite, using inline citations instead of simply listing "News articles", and eliminating the peacocky language. This is clearly notable enough for an article - it's a huge church with three campuses in three different cities, and gets regular news coverage of its activities. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that the nominator is a newcomer and a WP:Single purpose account; that probably accounts for their unfamiliarity with WP:N. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is correct, but the problems no longer exist.  Note that the nominator did not contest the article on WP:N, but rather WP:V and WP:NPOV.  For those trying to make a notability argument, all megachurches are notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep and speedy close per arguments above. --Cavarrone (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Is there any evidence of notability outside of local coverage? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "local coverage" is actually regional, which is acceptable for establishing notabilty. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand inot a proper article instead of a stub. "#13 out of the 50 most influential churches", though no doubt only one journalist's POV suggests notability to me.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2012 (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.