Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridge Fellowship


 * 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bridge Fellowship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page fails on the following WP standards under DEL

4. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content The article is serving primarily as an advertising platform for the church.

7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Very few articles from reliable sources

8.Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline Due to the lack of reliable sources or large-scale impact.

The page has had a notability notification since May 2012 and has since provided multiple instances of notability from many reliable sources since that time. As such. the article should be not be deleted. 5minutes (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 12.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cyberbot. It's my first nomination.  5minutes (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - a lot of effort was made, but no evidence of meeting GNG. —Мандичка YO 😜 21:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Oh, dear. This appears to be from a parallel world of parochial/evangelical home schooling, so RS and especially independent ones are going to be very, very difficult. This is made worse by the similarity of the name with other (secular and at-risk) programs. Delete per nomination. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * DeleteHeyyouoverthere (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP: MULTIPLE and varied historical and cultural references have been added and updated. This page is of great historical and cultural interest to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.126.12 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)  — 70.61.126.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: This page has needed modifications to meet the notability guidelines required for WP and the only links are to its own site or advertising for the church. This does not qualify as notable.  5minutes (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: 5minutes commented: the only links are to its own site or advertising for the church. That is not correct. There are at least a dozen links included that are NOT in any way the church links or advertising or published due to the church (not that anything is wrong with including them as a solid reference, anyway). I hope that the recommended deletion is not a part of a greater conspiracy to eliminate references to successful black-owned businesses and multi-cultural community organizations. That would be very sad. The progression shown in this entry is very significant to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.126.12 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Response I am not sure what conspiracy you are referring to. There are significant problems with the article in question.  The links on the page are to, in numerical order: NC Secretary of State referencing name change (not notable news source); broken link to News and Record article on remodeling (debatable as to establishing notability of article on a global basis); Youtube (nope); Pastor's CD Baby page (nope); ditto (nope); a broken link (nope); The church's website, next 4 links - (nope); Church Rater (not a notable news source); ad for party at church (nope), Youtube (again, nope); church's website (nope); Youtube (nope); an article on the history of Dunlap Springs (would be notable on an article on the mineral springs, but not the church); manual of the church that was formerly at the site (does not establish notability for this church); 2 articles that establish the existence of the former Bible college, but doesn't establish notability of this church (nope); and finally, an article about the closure of the cosmetology school that doesn't establish the notability of this church (nope).  All in all, there is exactly maybe one article on this page - a broken link - that may actually establish notability for this congregation, and all it really does is announce that the church is remodeling.  That does not establish notability and therefore, the article should be deleted.  5minutes (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject is not notable, based on the references supplied and my own searching. The article reads like an advertisement "Warm friendly people who are on a journey together to learn how to live the way God intended. … A cafe so you can get a beverage." That could be fixed, but notability cannot. --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2015 (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.