Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Word 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The result was speedy keep: the nomination was withdrawn and no other users endorsed deletion. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Living Word Fellowship[edit]

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

The article (although a source is included) does not assert the notability of its subject, which is described as "a Christian group" without telling us why this particular group is different from any other group of people. Borock (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this stub several years ago, mainly for the purpose of disambiguation from The Living Word Fellowship. I didn't know enough about the group (or the general subject) to write a decent article about it, but this group appeared to be notable. I still believe the group is notable as an examplar of the Jesus movement that was studied and documented as such (by academic researcher Steven M. Tipton) and has been referred to in numerous other publications, apparently due in large part to Tipton's research. I hoped someone with more knowledge of the subject would expand the article, but subsequent editing only made it slightly shorter. After seeing this AFD, I expanded the article a little and added inline citations. That should be sufficient to show notability; maybe now someone else with greater understanding of the subject will expand it further. Note: The article is written in the past tense; I haven't determined whether the LWF is still active. --Orlady (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks Gene. You've established its notability, especially since it was the subject of a (well, one third of a) scholarly book. Borock (talk) 21:40, 13 July 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.