Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenhills Christian Fellowship (2nd 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. Consensus is that notability is lacking here.Michig (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhills Christian Fellowship[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A topic that appears to fail WP:ORGDEPTH. Searches for sources are yielding articles with passing mentions ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), but they are lacking substantial coverage about the topic itself. Google Books entries are likewise depicting book sources with passing mentions. Posting at AfD rather than prodding to counter the potential for systemic bias on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If a church with 7000 members is not notable, I have doubts as to what church ever will be. As the Intenet is propbabably less developed in Phillippines than some countries the lack fo sources may be unsurprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this was nominated for deletion and consensus last time was to delete but with a single dissenting opinion from Peterkingiron along the same lines as above. That always makes me concerned about the same systematic bias that NA1000 referenced above. That the same editor could raise the same concerns twice (5 years apart) without them being addressed in the article (has it been recreated having previously been deleted?) bothers me. Peter's concerns seem legitimate. I suppose where I hit a snag is that while having 7000 members might be a valid assertion of notability (leaving aside WP:BIGNUMBER), that claim still needs to be verified by reliable sources and it isn't. I've searched and I couldn't find a single source to verify the claim. All I could find was a brief mention here and there (like this) - no "significant coverage", or even a single independent source to verify anything that could be used to assert/validate notability. As such, I'm inclined to delete unless someone can find at least one source verifying a particular claim to notability or enough coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 04:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless someone else finds reliable source/s that confirm the number of adherents to be 7000 (which is already rather large for a Baptist congregation) then I don't think this is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable church and as lacking in depth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2012 (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.