Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enlightened Life Fellowship Church

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. Does not look promotional anymore, but still fails the notability criteria.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightened Life Fellowship Church[edit]

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

Only 10 Google results. [1] Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG as every one of them is a primary source. Looks very promotional as well. Jinkinson talk to me 01:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent Google hits at all. -- 101.119.15.84 (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't expect much in the way of Google hits for it - it's only been been up and running for about a week. I don't know much about American Christian ministers/pastors or whatever, except for what I see here. I will say I've not come across one before who was a "Certified Reiki Master, Iridologist, Aromatherapist and Master Herbalist" though. I don't think that affects the notability of the Church anyway. Peridon (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. unsigned post by Tom Morris. Peridon (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional tone and primary sources, not to mention the second paragraph is complete fluff. Unsurprisingly, Google News and browser searches provided nothing aside from their website. Out of the current references, only one is not primary and that's the Secretary of State ID which basically means nothing to an encyclopedia. Their website says it's based in Colorado Springs so I searched with that but found nothing aside from primary again, a new local church probably wouldn't receive that much attention anyway. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the comments that were made concerning reasons for deletion, which were emailed to me.

I must state my case and would appreciate this being shared. We are a new Christian Denomination with a a home base in Colorado Springs, CO. We are now training ministers, who are currently ordained within the United Church of Christ and the Metropolitan Community Church, who will be opening 4 new churches in Wyoming, Kansas, Pennsylvania and California. The page is not fluff. It is exact information about who we are. Martin Luther, upon separating and starting his own following was no different than we are now. The amount of google hits that a website has had should not determine the value of information on an institution. The page is NOT promotional in any way shape or form. It is meant to be strictly informative. With new churches opening and our community efforts, we want people to be able to research us in as many ways as possible. We may be considered a local church at this point and time; however, the Metropolitan Community Community church would have been considered local as well and look how that denomination has grown. Within the next 8 months we will be fully registered with the Colorado Department of Higher Education as a Seminary. We are simply waiting for the finalization of the donation of the school property to go through. When it comes to the notability of a Church it is that it serves the greater good. I can supply a plethora references from pastors across the country stating as to how Pastor Charter and I have been doing just that in our decades of ministry. As far as what is relevant for an encyclopedia ..... any all and any information, no matter how mundane it may seem. I my self have researched Wikipedia for information I knew I would find no where else. As far as being a Certified Reiki Master, Iridologist, Aromatherapist, etc. bringing notability to the church, for the many spiritual healing and self help awareness beliefs we have these areas bring much notability to the denomination and the church. There are MANY pastors who are Reiki masters, iridologists and such! Just because one has not met one does not mean we do not exist. We not only help people on their spiritual path but we help them learn to help themselves. I ask that you and the board of reviewers, please, make a decision to keep the article; and as we grow and are able to help communities across the county, more information can be added. Yes, we are a new denomination. Yes, every denomination/church starts small. However, our credibility comes from our many years of independent service, our focus on expansion, our desire to help people without a "what's in it for me" attitude. I aske that you make a decision to give us a chance. If your decision is to stay with the deletion of the article, I can do no more than to honor that decision; however, I would hope that you would see even though we are new. We deserve the opportunity to be researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear80905 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your extensive comment and your contributions. By fluff, I meant the paragraph that starts with "The statement of faith" because listing the church's religious views aren't necessary for an encyclopedia especially because we try and keep things neutral here. Some people may not want to hear the church's entire philosphy and the like. I understand if you didn't make the article intentionally for promotional purposes but with the lack of even one or two local news articles (third-party), it comes off as promotional and all relies on the church website. It's hard to make a Wikipedia article for churches sometimes because they don't get that much in-depth news coverage (mostly holiday events, donations, etc.) except megachurches. To accustom yourself with the guidelines, consider visiting my page for new users here. If you need any further help, feel free to contact me directly at my talk page. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that paragraph as a clear WP:COPYVIO -- 101.119.15.117 (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic appears to not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, as source searches have not produced any third-party coverage in reliable sources. For example, there are zero GNews and GBooks hits, other than the Wikipedia article itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you (SwisterTwister) for your help and in put! I read your page a few times. I am going to re-write the article with information gathered from some old interviews and current ones. I will also build upon the definition of the denomination, rather than the statement of faith. I will also ask for outside input. If you think that this will help, with the correct references included, please let me know. It is my desire to meet your expectations. Thank you! [User:Bear80905|Bear80905] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear80905 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources first. -- 101.119.15.117 (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changes have been made - still looks promotional. And there are still no reliable independent sources. The one independent one goes to something that looks like a State registration lookup. Can't show notability. Peridon (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Not surprising for a church that was formed a couple of weeks ago. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2013 (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.