Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Hope 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 flagged as copyvio. MER-C 08:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living Hope Church[edit]

Contested prod. Prod concern was "A church; no assertion or evidence of notability". Deprodder gave no edit summary or comment. Article contains no references to independent reliable sources that could evidence meeting WP:ORG. GRBerry 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and Alexa Web Traffic ranking of 760,781. --Nishkid64 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for heaven's sake. Also contrary to the spirit of WP:SPAM and not a soapbox. Pascal.Tesson 01:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and also POV.--K-UNIT 01:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. —dustmite 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam, soapbox, POV, RS, take your pick. — riana_dzast a _{wreak havoc|damage report} 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just bad on so many levels. It's almost an ad. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations; fails WP:ADS, WP:ORG and Soapbox criterias; as well as POV.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons stated above. NawlinWiki 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of [1] eaolson 04:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note that it can't be speedily deleted as a copyvio anymore, since it's existed for more than 48 hours.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio and POV. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio, nn, spam etc... Localzuk ^(talk) 11:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, advert, and in agreement with the points above doktorb _words^deeds 17:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, nn, soapbox. --Shirahadasha 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like an ad more than anything else. --physicq210 19:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an advert, no assertion of notability --JaimeLesMaths 01:04, 18 September 2006 (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.