Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penrith Christian Life Centre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Flowerparty☀ 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Penrith Christian Life Centre[edit]
- Penrith Christian Life Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
fails WP:ORG. very little third party coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - very little non-primary-source coverage. Orderinchaos 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The merge suggested by Cunard sounds acceptable to me as an alternative response. Orderinchaos 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Churches affiliated with Australian Christian Churches per WP:PRESERVE. This church appears to be important in its community (as of 2001, it had 1750 members), but sadly, searches for sources on Google News Archive using terms such as "Penrith Christian Life Centre", "Penrith Christian", "ImagineNations Church", and "Imagine Nations Church" return only passing mentions. Since this church appears to be important in its community, a merge to Churches affiliated with Australian Christian Churches would be preferable over deletion. Cunard (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This church appears to be important in its community is in itself not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. I concede that the church is non-notable. That's why I'm advocating a merge per WP:PRESERVE in lieu of deletion. A merge does not require the church to be notable. A merge only requires sources to verify the content. The content in the article is easily verified using the church's website. Cunard (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The church's website is a primary source. Orderinchaos 17:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. I concede that the church is non-notable. That's why I'm advocating a merge per WP:PRESERVE in lieu of deletion. A merge does not require the church to be notable. A merge only requires sources to verify the content. The content in the article is easily verified using the church's website. Cunard (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (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.