Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure Heart Christian 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 Delete. Fram (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Heart Christian Fellowship[edit]

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

A search on Google and Google News archives turns up nothing that suggests this church meets our criteria at WP:ORG Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What I found on the search was about a church of the same name in Florida. I found nothing under the name of founders George Rayburn or Nyla Rayburn. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary of the article to Glendale, Arizona, omitting all (or most of) the detail on beliefs, which sound orthodox and hence NN: they would be appropriate to a church website but not WP. Such merger is usually the best solution for articles on subjects of local significance only. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glendale has a lot of churches for its 250,000 people. Mandsford (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not merge). This church is non-notable, and the Glendale article does not include a list of local churches (as most city articles don't). --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merging seems to be of little gain as even modestly-sized communities could/would be overwhelmed by brief mentions of the various businesses & societies, small & large, pervasive in any hamlet or city. — Scientizzle 14:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SnottyWong talk 01:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero secondary sources treat the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 02:58, 20 May 2010 (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.