Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinkNZ

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. Sandstein 19:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LinkNZ[edit]

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

I simply found nothing to suggest better notability and improvement even if minimal with my best search results here. Overall, it seems even the most basic and simple searches find nothing good and their website is currently under construction. This has existed since January 2007 with no signs of improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- It seems to be a small denomination, or something of that nature. We usually keep articles on such. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added a reference to Global Renewal Christianity: Asia and Oceania Spirit-Empowered Movements: Past, Present, and Future, but it's only a mention. There are a lot of references and description on the member church pages, although they are not really independent sources. I agree it would look better when the website is "up and running in all it’s glory", but I suspect the website overhaul is connected to a change of logo (compare [1] with [2]). St Anselm (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent references with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better for notability, fails depth coverage . justnikhi 04:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They may be "awesome as Churches", but collectively they are not notable. St Anselm (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage. From a notability standpoint it is really rather irrelevant what is on their own webpages, unless it points to indepdent reliable sources with substantial content. Fails WP:ORG. --Bejnar (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in searches to show the notability of this group as a whole. And nothing clear enough to show a redirect to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:23, 3 October 2015 (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.