Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hope 08

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. Time to close this AFD. The nominator put out an offer to reorient this article, move it to a different title and expand it but this was over two weeks ago and no editor has presented these sources to take them up on this proposal so this is a straight deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope 08[edit]

[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 that this mission had any lasting importance. Refs are all primary except the CD review, which is not really about the event but about a related album - and notability is not inherited. No after-the-fact independent coverage located on a search.

De-PROD'd with the addition of this reference, which is not great in my opinion as it's mostly reporting what some guy involved with Hope 08 said to a bunch of church leaders about church attendance increasing. It actually in no way serves as coverage of the Hope 08 campaign. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, and United Kingdom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It appears to be a short-lived campaign run jointly by several notable Christian organisations, with no ongoing notability. I doubt it is worth merging to any of the sponsors. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Short-lived campaigns, if they receive adequate coverage, can certainly be notable, WP:NOTTEMPORARY ~Kvng (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there was adequate coverage, I wouldn't have taken it to AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be mentioned by the BBC at least once: https://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2008/05/14/hope08_aston_feature.shtml would this count as coverage? The "Hope Together" mission that Hope 08 was a part of seems to be going strong https://www.hopetogether.org.uk/. Maybe rename to Hope Together and expand?Spiralwidget (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It's published by the BBC, but there's no byline, and at the bottom, it says "send us your photos, stories and experiences and we will add them as features to the BBC Birmingham website." This suggests that the content in the above article is submitted by members of the church/movement as promotion for it. Other features from around that time on Wayback Machine indicate the same - this one was "Compiled by Young Adults from Science of Spirituality in Birmingham", whereas others like this one have bylines, indicating that they are by journalists. But even if we accepted it as significant coverage, it's only one piece, so there's still not enough for GNG. (I am not counting the source added by Kvng for the reasons outlined above.)

If Hope Together has GNG-compliant independent coverage (own website obviously doesn't count), I have no opposition to moving this article to that title and rescoping/expanding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks of significnt coverage. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2022 (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.