Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restored Covenant Churches of God


 * 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. Wizardman 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored Covenant Churches of God

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

This article has been speedy-tagged, prod tagged, deleted, recreated but never in all that time has actually had an AfD discussion. Bringing its latest incarnation over for discussion so we can either decide it's keepable and bring an end to the tag/untag cycle that has graced this article's history from the outset, or get a clear consensus to delete it so any future repostings can be G4 deleted. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride  scent  15:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt--Creator "bishopgilson" may well be the "Bishop J-M Gilson-Levi" referred to in the article, leading me to suspect a WP:COIN. Though apparently about the Restored Covenant Churches of God, approximately a quarter of the article by wordcount is a biography of this Bishop Gilson, who purports to be "the Senior Apostle of the Restored Covenant Churches of God, the Chairman of the European Apostolic Union, the european presiding for the ICOF (International Circle of Faith) and the Senior Pastor of the Midnight Hour Ministry in Folkestone" but generates "about 67 hits" on Google, none of which are even remotely reliable sources, and most of which are actually illiterate. Claims in the article of 3,000 affiliate churches seem equally wildly exaggerated; google generates a derisory number of hits for such an allegedly important organisation. Most of the relevant hits I do find have the appearance of highly amateurish self-promotion attempts.
 * The article makes a derisory attempt at citing references but none of them even remotely meet WP:RS. Bishop Gilson fails WP:BIO, the article fails WP:ADVERT, and the church itself fails WP:ORG. All three of them fail WP:N and WP:V.
 * I do not think there are any redeeming factors whatsoever. Make it go away.--S Marshall (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I second the motion to "make it go away." Most of the Church's claims to notability seem to be completely untrue. Paragon  12321  19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete  and Salt   While the author may have good intentions, the article fails on so many levels.  Is it not G4 or G11?  Failing that, delete per the above. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)  [Preceding edited by myself, originally created by me anon... see response below S Marshal.  Laughing Vulcan  02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)]
 * Comment--We can't G4 something unless there's been a full AFD procedure; Iridescent does explain that above. In other words, if we don't speedy this, there are grounds to G4 it in future if it gets recreated under a different name. Because of this, please could you withdraw your speedy recommendation?--S Marshall (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand you correctly, I can do as I did above, withdraw the speedy and leave it as regular delete, which should allow a future G4, if any recreated? I have no objection to do that, and (hopefully!) understand Iridescent's point better thanks to your explanation.  (Just coming out of a long Wikibreak, and created the above earlier without logging in.)   Laughing Vulcan  02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly; articles deleted via a full AfD discussion can be speedied-on-sight if they're recreated without improvement, whereas merely speedied articles can be recreated as often as the creator likes. – iride  scent  19:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:18, 14 August 2008 (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.