Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Life Christian Center

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 18:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Life Christian Center[edit]

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

A few months ago I proposed deletion (PROD), giving as the reason "Still unsourced after being tagged for over 5 years, and searches fail to produce any significant independent coverage." An editor removed the PROD, and added references to the New Life Christian Center's own web site, YouTube, and a copy of the New Life Christian Center's calendar. However, the article still has no references to independent sources, and it still remains true that there is no sign of significant independent coverage anywhere, as far as my searches can find. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas nominated, no independant sources to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per TheLongTone. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I've just spent a rather unconstructive few minutes Googling "New Life Christian Center", only to discover what a common name for a church it is. I've also watched one of the church's videos, which left me feeling quite queasy. However, what I haven't been able to find is any independent media coverage of this organisation. It is, clearly, a thriving and highly profitable business, but in the absence of any references other than their own websites and publicity I think it has to go. If better sources of information subsequently become available, it will be easy to re-create this article at that time. RomanSpa (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a bad article, but if correctly classified (in the infobox) as a megachurch it ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 10 May 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.