Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Teahouse (Anglican Network) (3rd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Teahouse (Anglican Network)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Cannot seem to find in-depth references to this group from orgs that aren't in some way affiliated to the CofE. Note also that the user who created this article has been blocked for spam/advertising. – GnocchiFan (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Notifying users involved in previous deletion discussions: Buidhe, JMWt, Pbritti, Scope creep, Siroxo – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete the in depth sources that would qualify a corp/org for a stand alone article still don't exist as pointed out in the last two AfD's. I'm not sure if a mention of this obscure organization would be WP:DUE in another wikipedia article but if there is a suitable redirect target I would not oppose that. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. It almost qualifies as spam. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity,  and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Mentioned here on BBC Liverpool: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09swrbl Daichopstix (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per the persistent concerns and failure of now three AfD discussions to definitively demonstrate notability. I still think an article is possible, but probably not at present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * By all that is holy, make it stop - this is the third time we've had an AfD in a month. We don't need to keep doing this. Do some WP:BEFORE and read the comments that the closer made last time. Which was last week. JMWt (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I thought it would be a couple of months before it was posted again, or even 6 months, but I'm glad its back up. The last time when I sent to to Afd there was nothing that indicated it was notable and there was no attempt to provide sources per WP:THREE to show it was notable.Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV.   scope_creep Talk  21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I did in the original AfD offer 3 sources for discussion here but instead of discussing them others seem to think it is appropriate to keep opening new AfD when the last one gives the wrong answer.
 * I don't really care about this page either way, to be clear. But I do care about WP:BLUDGEON, ignoring the closing admins comments and ignoring the reality that I was the only person in this whole process who seemed to be serious about assessing the sources. JMWt (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I closed the first two AFDs and can't believe this article is already back at AFD for a third visit. I really don't understand the focus on this article and why it has gotten so much attention and brought to AFD three times. There is no way I'm closing an AFD on the same article for a third time, another admin can review this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 3 October 2023 (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.