Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honor Oak Christian Fellowship Centre

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Oak Christian Fellowship Centre[edit]

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

WP: MILL church Mr. Guye (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All that I can find are self-published books.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think that historically this has been a significant church in its time. My recollection is that Ichthus Christian Fellowship grew out of Honor Oak, but I may be wrong. I note that the site is now in use by others, so that this is a historical article. I appreciate that the sources are not the best ones, but do we have reason to believe that they are inaccurate? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Peterkingiron: The article contains only one source, and I can't verify it. Hardly will this source be considered neutral, credible and sufficiently detailed for a comprehensive article. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should not expect to find everything important on-line! You will not have eben helped by my not getting the riught link - now corrected. And please login so that the rest of us know who you are. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- The fact that two people (one with WP bio-article) wrote critiques suggests to me that they tought it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read the article, google searched and did a news search. There is nothing there which suggests notability. The article has a single reference which I can't find in any of the usual places, suggesting it is self published or perhaps some kind of pamphlet. Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject ot later re-creation when more sources can be found. The problem that I have with the article is that it appears to be entirely original research. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2014 (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.