Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Wealth of Zion Assembly

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. The delete arguments are far stronger in policy here. Asserting that the article has "a reasonably long list of sources" and that "some probably are" independent just will not wash. No specific sources were pointed to in the discussion that actually confirm notability despite being requested to do so. The rest of the KEEP contributors simply asserted that NCHURCH had been met, which plainly it has not unless and until the above point is addressed. SpinningSpark 13:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common Wealth of Zion Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Apparently non-notable religious organization. A search turns up nothing contributing to GNG, while the cited references are either dead, suspended, classified as dangerous, self-published, or do not constitute significant coverage.

It is possible that the dead/suspended/dangerous sources did meet GNG, but I consider that unlikely. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are you suggesting the various in-country news coverage of allegations against the senior pastor don't count towards notability? Jclemens (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They count for the pastor (though WP:BLP1E would have to be considered), but I don't believe constitute significant coverage of the organization. If an article for the pastor exists it would make sense to redirect the organization to them, IMO. BilledMammal (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- As a church with 5 campuses, this is effectively a small denomination. There is a reasonably long list of sources, some of which may not be independent, but some probably are. The (unverified) church attendance of 20,000 even if the total from all campuses is probably approaching that of a mega-church. All in all, I think there is enough here for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply not notable at all. --RamotHacker (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- per Peterkingiron as subject satisfy NCHURCH and NONPROFIT. Dfertileplain (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets NCHURCH per Peterkingiron.4meter4 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User:4meter4, User:Dfertileplain and User:Peterkingiron; WP:NCHURCH just says that they must have met the heightened requirements of WP:NCORP, which states "[It is] notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:ORGCRIT then provides an in depth definition of those words.

My own review of the citations, and my own before search, suggests to me that we do not meet this; perhaps one of you can provide WP:THREE to prove that we do? BilledMammal (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Peterkingiron's and subsequent keep votes aren't based in policy. As BilledAnimal states, NCHURCH explicitly sets the standard to meet which must either fulfill the requirements laid out in the WP:GNG or those in WP:ORG/WP:NONPROFIT. Nothing implies these churches operates at a national or international level, and the church has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. The sources that are provided are either insignificant and merely mention the church in passing, aren't independent of the subject, or aren't reliable sources. Seddon ^talk 21:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - promotional article, lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:31, 19 September 2021 (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.