Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchard Hill 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 delete.  Sango 123  01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Orchard Hill Church
Delete. Non-notable church. ... disco spinster   talk  00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I fail to see which criterion you see could catergorise this as NN under, pls explain, as pls take deletion more seriously and list your reasons why this should be deleted, WE CANNOT READ YOUR MIND -- Librarianofages 02:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's a non-notable church.  What more do I have to say? ...  disco spinster   talk  13:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable, and I see no particular claim to notability in this article. --Metropolitan90 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are thousands of churches in the US. This is one of them. Fan-1967 02:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Metropolitan90 and Fan-1967. This is just a single church, rather than a group of churches or a denomination. Also, it has only been in existence since 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjkolb (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, just a local church. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * delete. I see nothing to distinguish this from the many religious buildings around the world. By the way, is it just me who finds the phrase Theologically Pure somewhat chilling? Markb 10:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Metropolitan90, Fan-1967 and Kjkolb. Stormscape 13:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Any building, company, or person merely doing its job is, by its nature, not set apart from the rest, not "notable."  This church sounds like a fine place serving the Lord, but it has nothing really that sets it apart, that marks it as special, from all the other churches.  Further, the article indicates that it is non-denominational, but that seems to mean Congregational rather than ecumenical.  Such wobbly terminology is distinctly unhelpful.  The church is expanding, which is nice, but not really significant.  Geogre 14:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Geogre et al. If only we could be this sensible about schools... &mdash; Haeleth Talk 20:32, 26 July 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.