Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mt. Olive Church of God

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 KEEP (no consensus). Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Olive Church of God[edit]

Delete non notable, non verifiable. Адам Райли ^Talk 20:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like any other church, and not notable at all Jayden54 21:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Mhking 23:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has one independent ref, seems like an important part of the community. Saying "It seems like any other church and not notable is just saying "I DON'T LIKE CHURCHES" and not a compelling argument for deletion of an article with content and at least one independent reference. Most Wikipedia articles don't even have one independent reference. With one, this is automatically in the top half. There is no reason that churches should be held to a higher standard than episodes of TV shows or most of the other unreferenced articles.Edison 05:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary into Cleveland, Tennessee, which could use some new content. JYolkowski // talk 18:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after some improvements. That church produced a music video for the band Everlife, and two months later Everlife was signed to Disney Records. That's pretty notable. If that information was added, I think it should be kept. Keeponplayin27 13:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since there seems to be no common reason like "Mt. Olive Church of God is a ungodly church" or "There is nothing 'godly' about that church" there really should be nothing to worry about. It's basically a Wikipedia page about the church and yes with a bit of some improvements there should be no harm done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lfmssoundman (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete - onely one independent reference, and yeah, it's helped produce a video, but does that make it notable? Probably not - I don't see the myriad of churches that have been showcased/used in movies/television with their own articles. SkierRMH 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see every recording studio in North America that has produced an album being notable for Wikipedia articles, either. --!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Riley (talk • contribs) 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment But this is a major-label band. FULLY PRODUCING the band's first music video is something notable. If this was an argument about keeping or deleting the organization who produced, for example, Green Day's first music video, or the Rolling Stones' first music video, everyone would be saying 'Keep it! It's part of the band's history!' If Everlife was an indie band that only a handful of people have heard of, it would be different. But they're not. Keep it. Keeponplayin27 06:25, 29 December 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.