Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah List

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 08:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah List[edit]

promotional; lack of reliable third-party sources on which to base an article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak delete - Borderline advertising and no reliable sources for over two years. Few results in Google and ~~none in Google News. I'm struggling to prove notability, but open to the potential~~. Seems I missed something there, Google News does indeed have various results though none of them are from particularly reputable sources. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 15:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google news only checks the last month by default--I make a habit of telling it to check "all dates". Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google books has one page listing the subject here. That's all I can find, and it ain't enough to qualify as multiple, non-trivial mentions. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google News search shows plenty of RS hits. Please review WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books has plenty of relevant hits, too. Clearly looks like a case where the article doesn't make use of the sourcing that exists, so I've flagged it for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep'. It was mentioned in a magazine, which if the claim is valid, says it has 131,000 subscribers, which makes it quite notable indeed. That's a lot more people reading their message than many newspapers and magazines. Dream Focus 11:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree, but is that claim valid? It's quoted on various websites but I didn't find any evidence of it. If that were not to be true, would it still be worth keeping? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 13:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like the quote was munged a bit and inflated from 127k to 131k (sneaky vandalism somewhere along the way?) but was substantially accurate, and I've found the original on the Charisma (magazine) web page, which really is independent, significant RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, and there's several more references to the list in the magazine's search index. Doesn't look like Google News indexes that particular publication. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nicely done. Excellent digging. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since nothing can be found in independant, reliable sources to ascertain notability. All the coverage that I've found is trivial. Them From Space 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a a directory not an advertising service and no independent notability established via non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. In particular, no independent sources exist for this spamvertising's most extravagant claims, which means no verifiability Bali ultimate (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete Nothing substantial enough to justify keeping this. WP:IINFO also. Springnuts (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC) ivo sources now included. Springnuts (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for revisiting this. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While the article itself may be a stub, and is in need of a decent WP:CLEANUP, there does seem to be enough reliable coverage in NEWS and BOOKS to alow proper expansion and sourcing. Being poorly written does not automatically equate with deletion, if the improvement will benefit the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those articles constitute significant coverage in independant, reliable sources? I can't see any there that make this meet WP:N. Them From Space 05:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Per discussion above, Charisma certainly does) Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bali Ultimate. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but did you take the time to notice that Bali Ultimate's statement does not accurately depict the article as it stands now? Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Sources As of now the article has two RS independent sources: 1) the McLaren book is published by Rowman & Littlefield which is clearly not a vanity press, and 2) the Charisma article, which is even more extensive, as well as being a major independent magazine within Charismatic Christianity. All !votes before this post which speak of poor/nonexistent sourcing (nom, John Carter, Themfromspace, Bali ultimate, Doctorfluffy) should be disregarded unless they are appropriately modified. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I've just added a plethora of minor mentions (that speak to V rather than N) in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't tell the admin whose votes to count, that's not your job. After looking over the sources, I stand by my initial observation. The coverage isn't significant enough. Them From Space 06:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.