Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Is Lord Church Worldwide

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Is Lord Church Worldwide

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

This article is in practice completely unsourced. All the references are either to Jesus Is Lord Church's own website or their Youtube channel, or to the site of the founder, Eddie Villanueva. The article has had to be indefinitely semiprotected because of in-universe promotion being persistently added by followers. Note that the name of the article has been changed, so see [1] if you want to look at the protection log.

I prodded the article on 6 November. The prod has been removed by a user who added more sources, but those sources are also all to the Church itself or to Villanueva. I've googled, but I'm unable to find any secondary sources at all. So things like "membership 4 million" are simply claims the church itself makes. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it really lived up to the claims, appropriate sources would easily be provided. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 21:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Utterly ridiculous claims with no sources for them or that I can find. Galobtter (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)~~ Actually ... a google books search does reveal [2] from cambridge university press supporting the article...weird Galobtter (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Able to find another book by the same author about this church..yet I know this church is in the phillipines so english language sources will be harder to find but surely there has to be more coverage on it if it truly is what it claims.. Galobtter (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With [3] and more I think it passes GNG. From this does appear to be one of the largest pentacostal churches in the phillipines. Will need to qualify a lot of the claims though. Galobtter (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep only. This appears to relate to a large local church which has had to move to having multiple services and has planted congregations in three other places. It is a bit small to regard as a denomination. In addition it appears to have many "contact centres" worldwide, but their significance is not clear: these do not seem to be congregations. It is always a difficult question as to when a local church is significant enough to be WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this there are 478 sunday services accross the phillipines. Galobtter (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added four references to the article think passes WP:GNG and it one of the largest pentacostal churches in the phillipines with millions of members. this this,this ,this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the organization being mentioned in Google books, the article is typed up in a form of advertisement per WP:PROMOTION. User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, Lulu.com is not considered a reliable source since its a self-publisher. ~~I recommend the article be sent to draft and recreated through WP:AfC.~~ — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ammarpad & E.M.Gregory — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another source from Polish version, plus WP:PROMO language is not reason for deletion because it can be toned down, otherwise, if t is such blatantly promotional it will qualify for G11. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -another source JIL holds prayer rally to mark 29th year from reliable and notable Newspaper The Philippine Star. These and already ones given above combined with those existing in the article will surely establish notability –Ammarpad (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lots of soruces, sometimes mere mentions, like the fact that the church has a branch in the "Little Manila" neighborhood of Tel Aviv, but also INDEPTH stories like Feuding religious sects go to court about this church's apparently intense rivalry with the El Shaddai (movement). Article needs cleanup, expansion as lots of our article do. But the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY I added a little sourced text on the rivalry between this church and El Shaddai, sources include South China Morning Post and Wall Street Journal (Asia edition). The rivalry appears to have peaked in the 1990s, which probably explains why Nom had trouble finding this church. WSJ says it "faded" after President Estrada joined El Shaddai. Sounds plausible. I am NOT saying that his is a good article. It needs a major cleanup, more sources, a project for some future historian of Philippine Christian movements. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I'm kind of surprised this article got nominated for deletion at all considering the prominence and size of the group. The group (independent of Villanueva) has received much coverage, both in Filipino and in English, within the Philippines and elsewhere. Nevertheless, the article still needs cleanup and be brought to a respectable standard (much like most of our other articles on Philippine topics). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:48, 2 December 2017 (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.