Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somanorth

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somanorth

Somanorth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced and fails WP:N. Delete. Bridgeplayer 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — for notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, has an advertisement feel also.--Paloma Walker 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It could be cleaned up, with some work. --Axelboldt

• Comment I think the issue here is not whether it could be cleaned up or not, but whether the church is notable enough, at the moment, to warrant a page in an encyclopedia. Adding outside, independent sources that make a case that the church is notable in some way would help this article immensely. However, a quick Google search will show that the only sources other than Wikipedia mirrors and Wikipedia itself that mention Somanorth are the church's own website. This is patently not notable. It is entirely possible that you are a member of this church or some other interested party. Please understand that a desire to see this church have a page in Wikipedia is objectively not, in itself, a reason to have one. Scienter 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Scienter 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - fails WP:N though more importantly lacks any sources and does not satisfy WP:ATT. NOt to mention the fact that it is self-contradicting. Is it or is it not an emerging church? The article says both. Arkyan 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Little evidence of notability. --Infrangible
• Delete as this subject is not yet suitable for an encyclopedia to cover. Mr. Berry 01:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The parent church apparently has no article (ot at least it isn't Wikilinked), so why should the satellite congregation? The multi-site church phenomenon is gaining ground, but does that mean we have to give a separate article to every satellite of every large church? Realkyhick 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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.