Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revelation Church: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:12, 1 November 2022

Revelation Church

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not sure about this one, but the sourcing seems bad to me, on account of being extremely... well, tribal, for lack of a better word. It's the type of coverage that gives vocal thanks to God when talking on the success of this church, and blandly reports that these guys focus on prophetic revelations and working miracles. Not exactly independent coverage, and I can't find anything substantial that is not all-caps Christian. But then I have little experience assessing the sourcing of religious bodies. Thoughts? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unreasonable deletion based on unreasonable reasons. the sourcing seems bad to me is a bad and unreasonable reason. Just because the sourcing is bad doesn't mean it is needed to be subjected to deletion. Read WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:WHYN. and on It's the type of coverage that gives vocal thanks to God when talking on the success of this church, and blandly reports that these guys focus on prophetic revelations and working miracles, a user can fix that. Not a deletion. This is an irrational choice. My vote is Strong Keep. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 05:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ploreky: As soon as you demonstrate the existence of two or more items of in-depth, independent coverage, I'm all for that. But you DO have to show those... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: Before I decided to write about the subject I saw several sources of in-depth, independent coverage but due to there being many sources that write about the church I decided to filter them and pick the ones I used as reference since you said they're bad sources, I've found more and still researching online to see if I will find more but first of all check the ones below, to me, they demonstrate in-depth, independent coverage (https://guardian.ng/news/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-revelation-church/), (https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/02/the-ministry-of-revelation-church-california-united-states/), (https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/11/01/revelation-church-from-a-bible-prayer-group-to-a-congregation-of-thousands/).Iwillkeepitup (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *'''Keep''' Unreasonable deletion based on unreasonable reasons. <span style=color:green>the sourcing seems bad to me</span> is a bad and unreasonable reason. Just because the sourcing is bad doesn't mean it is needed to be subjected to deletion. Read [[WP:ARTN]], [[WP:NEXIST]], [[WP:WHYN]]. and on  <span style=color:green>It's the type of coverage that gives vocal thanks to God when talking on the success of this church, and blandly reports that these guys focus on prophetic revelations and working miracles</span>, a user can fix that. Not a deletion. This is an irrational choice. My vote is Strong Keep. <span style="color:blue;">Pl</span><span style="color:red;">or</span><span style="color:green;">ek</span><span style="color:blue">y</span><sup><b><i>[[User talk:Ploreky|Have a<span style="color:red;"> problem?</span>]]</i></b></sup> 05:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 ::{{re|Ploreky}} As soon as you demonstrate the existence of two or more items of in-depth, independent coverage, I'm all for that. But you DO have to show those... --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 09:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
+:::{{re|Elmidae}} Before I decided to write about the subject I saw several sources of in-depth, independent coverage but due to there being many sources that write about the church I decided to filter them and pick the ones I used as reference since you said they're bad sources, I've found more and still researching online to see if I will find more but first of all check the ones below, to me, they demonstrate in-depth, independent coverage (https://guardian.ng/news/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-revelation-church/), (https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/02/the-ministry-of-revelation-church-california-united-states/), (https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/11/01/revelation-church-from-a-bible-prayer-group-to-a-congregation-of-thousands/).[[User:Iwillkeepitup|Iwillkeepitup]] ([[User talk:Iwillkeepitup|talk]]) 09:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)