- Revelation Church (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe the page was wrongly deleted because the article has enough verification from reliable sources for it to have a separate page and not a redirect. Iwillkeepitup (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The decision appears to be correct based on the arguments put forth and the low quality of the sources presented, which provide very little information about the Church beyond the fact that it exists and that it is led by Lovy Elias. As such, the redirect to Elias's page is correct. Jahaza (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist (uninvolved) Consensus is not there to delete/redirect. There are three delete/redirect votes (including the nom) and two keep votes. One delete vote
on each side can be dismissed (4meter4's "delete" vote that claims failure of WP:ORG while not giving any insight as to why and page creator Iwillkeepitup's "keep" vote which says the opposite with no evidence). Ploreky Iwillkeepitup presents three sources that may be borderline-GNG which do not appear to be rephrased press releases as Elmidae claimed. Also the language of the close, "by the way, an individual church is not what we would consider a "denomination," could be considered a WP:SUPERVOTE (though I do not believe that was the intent as Liz is a one of the better AFD closers we have). Frank Anchor 19:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Frank Anchor: @Jclemens: @CT55555: Pinging a couple of relist voters. Ploreky commented two times but didn't provide sources, it was the page creator who added those here. If I'm missing something please correct me, thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, it was User:Iwillkeepitup who put in the sources in response to User:Ploreky’s vote. Not Plorkey putting in the source. This has no effect on my “relist” vote. Frank Anchor 03:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your update, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - There is not a single reliable, secondary, independent source which has "significant coverage" of this church, and several participants noted as much. I think it's quite clear that this fails WP:ORG, and policy is more important than # of votes per WP:NOTAVOTE. Additionally, Liz's comment to the use of "denomination" has nothing to do with the article's deletion or fate, and thus is not a SUPERVOTE by any means. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. I have a very high opinion of the closing admin, she does a great job at AFD, so it slightly pains me to disagree with her, but with an uncertain nominator, one delete, two keeps, and one redirect argument, there doesn't seem like a consensus to redirect. I'm surprised this one wasn't given more time. CT55555 (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist Redirect isn't a terrible close, but I don't see the strength in arguments there when actually examining the sources. I agree with Frank that the sources are not press releases; whether they are reliable or significant coverage was not addressed in the discussion. Another week might well sort things out, but at the time of closure, I'm seeing no consensus to either keep or redirect. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. Relist would have at least as valid, probably better, but the question is whether the closer made a reasonable conclusion, and she did. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The delete/redirect side here is indeed weak per Frank Anchor and Jclemens's insightful commentary. However, IMO the keep votes are too weak. Other than the article creator, who of course will vote keep but provides decent commentary that sources are WP:SIGCOV, the only other independent voter is Ploreky. However, I should note that this user, while enthusiastic, has been warned for unhelpful AfD comments at User talk:Ploreky#AFDs. Here, they repeatedly critique the deletion rationale, but didn't provide a source analysis as well, instead vaguely criticising others, which does not push consensus towards keep much. As such, IMHO the keep side is also quite weak, with both two votes being less than the most desirable, though one of the redirect votes from 4meter4 is additionally weak, though I'm sure if this is relisted they will comment more). With the delete/redirect side having a slight numerical advantage (3-2), it might be marginally, though not significantly stronger than the keep votes, which is what Liz interpreted and I think it is sound. If this is a 4-2 I'm definitely at endorse, but as the AfD stands in my opinion a relist could also be desirable and an equally good choice as well, but I can see the closure's rationale. Therefore, I'm at neutral. VickKiang (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. I am not seeing a clear consensus among the participants. I think a source analysis would be useful at moving the discussion forward towards building a conensus.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see consensus here. Looking at the sources, WPl:N appears to be passed, depending on how you consider local sources. So
overturn to relist for a fuller discussion. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- After a close, suggestions the “WP:N appears to be passed” should be required to be accompanied by the 2 or 3 sources that demonstrate the passing of WP:N. Otherwise, the circle may never end. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair, and looking closer, the articles do appear to be basically press releases. I looked at them for having facts and being in an RS, not for looking like just copy from a press release. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. It was the right outcome. Iwillkeepitup (talk · contribs) has the wrong apprehension that WP:V gives a threshold for a standalone article. They should be referred to WP:Notability. The correct decision was made. For ongoing challenges, discuss the matter on the talk page of the redirect target, and consider it a fresh request for a WP:SPINOUT. There was no deletion, do not bring it back to DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse a reasonable interpretation of consensus with appropriate weight given to the various arguments. Thparkth (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
