Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Teahouse (Anglican Network) (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 no consensus‎. There is no little participation here after one relist and the previous AFD means that this can't be closed as Soft Deletion. Please wait much, much longer before bringing this article back to AFD #3. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse (Anglican Network)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication of being notable for a brand new organisation. Fails WP:NCORP. First main block of references is WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS sources. scope_creep^Talk 07:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, we just closed an AfD on this about a week ago, I'm not sure I have the energy to make the same points again. here

JMWt (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @JMWt:, you can relax. I will do the talking for you.The editor has been seen as what they are, a UPE/Spammer and is thankfully blocked now. I was planning to take them to WP:ANI this afternoon, but they are now gone. scope_creep^Talk 13:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are chronically bad for brand new organisation. I can't understand the !voting in the previous Afd. scope_creep^Talk 13:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not entirely sure I see any direct COI issues in the current article but there was clearly a personal relationship between the creator and the organization/its members. This discussion wasn't posted to a few relevant noticeboards until very late so I say we ought to come back to this in a couple months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We just closed the last AFD on this article 3 weeks ago. I'm tempted to procedurally close this as Keep as we've done other times.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the sources in the first block:

Ref 1 [1] This is a routine announcement of new website. It is WP:PRIMARY on a church which reads like a blog. Nam is the diocese of Bristol’s Minority Ethnic Vocations Champion. So that his local website.
Ref 2 [2] Company site. Non-rs.
Ref 3 [3] Another routine annoucement of formation. It is WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
Ref 4 [4] Raw search url is non-rs.404
Ref 5 [5] It is WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
Ref 6 [6] This reads like another annoucement from a press-release announcing its formation.
Ref 7 [7] This is an interview with Mark Nam. Its is not independent.
Ref 8 [8] This comes closest to be a real article but it is not independent.
Ref 9 [9] States it a press-release. Non-RS.
Ref 10 [10] It is an article by Mark Nam and is not independent.

There is not a lot that can be said to be independent, in-depth, reliable and secondary. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might need to have quite a long think about why nobody else is prepared to engage in !voting on this AfD. JMWt (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2023 (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.