Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Hope Church: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:21, 7 February 2023

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 flagged as copyvio. MER-C 08:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living Hope Church

Contested prod. Prod concern was "A church; no assertion or evidence of notability". Deprodder gave no edit summary or comment. Article contains no references to independent reliable sources that could evidence meeting WP:ORG. GRBerry 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and Alexa Web Traffic ranking of 760,781. --Nishkid64 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for heaven's sake. Also contrary to the spirit of WP:SPAM and not a soapbox. Pascal.Tesson 01:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and also POV.--K-UNIT 01:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. —dustmite 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam, soapbox, POV, RS, take your pick. — riana_dzast a _{wreak havoc|damage report} 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just bad on so many levels. It's almost an ad. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations; fails WP:ADS, WP:ORG and Soapbox criterias; as well as POV.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons stated above. NawlinWiki 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of [1] eaolson 04:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note that it can't be speedily deleted as a copyvio anymore, since it's existed for more than 48 hours.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio and POV. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio, nn, spam etc... Localzuk ^(talk) 11:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, advert, and in agreement with the points above doktorb _words^deeds 17:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, nn, soapbox. --Shirahadasha 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like an ad more than anything else. --physicq210 19:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an advert, no assertion of notability --JaimeLesMaths 01:04, 18 September 2006 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.  ''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was
+'''flagged as copyvio'''. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 ===[[Living Hope Church]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}
 Contested prod.  Prod concern was "A church; no assertion or evidence of notability".  Deprodder gave no edit summary or comment.  Article contains no references to independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that could evidence meeting [[WP:ORG]]. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per [[WP:RS]] and Alexa Web Traffic ranking of [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livinghopechurch.com%2F 760,781]. --[[User:Nishkid64|<span style="color:red">'''Nish'''</span><span style="color:blue">'''kid'''</span><span style="color:green">'''64'''</span>]] 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' for heaven's sake. Also contrary to the spirit of [[WP:SPAM]] and [[WP:NOT|not a soapbox]]. [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 01:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. Per nom and also POV.--[[User:K-UNIT|K-UNIT]] 01:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' for obvious reasons. —[[User:Bluedustmite|dustmite]] 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''', spam, soapbox, POV, RS, take your pick. &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]][[User:Riana_dzasta/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">a</span>]]''' <sub>[[User_talk:Riana_dzasta|wreak havoc]]'''|'''[[Special:Contributions/Riana_dzasta|damage report]] </sub> 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+* '''Delete''' Just bad on so many levels. It's almost an ad. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]])</small> 03:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. No citations; fails [[WP:ADS]], [[WP:ORG]] and [[WP:NOT|Soapbox]] criterias; as well as POV.--[[User:Tree Biting Conspiracy|<b style="background:red; color:#FFFF00;">TBC</b>]][[User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy|<span style="color:red; font-size:smaller;">TaLk?!?</span>]] 03:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' for all the reasons stated above. [[User:NawlinWiki|NawlinWiki]] 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Speedy delete''' as copyvio of [http://www.livinghopechurch.com/about_us.php] [[User:Eaolson|eaolson]] 04:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+**'''Comment'''. Note that it can't be speedily deleted as a copyvio anymore, since it's existed for more than 48 hours.--[[User:Tree Biting Conspiracy|<b style="background:red; color:#FFFF00;">TBC</b>]][[User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy|<span style="color:red; font-size:smaller;">TaLk?!?</span>]] 05:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+* '''Delete''' Copyvio and POV. <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''thanks'''/[[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]] [[User talk:MatthewFenton|Lexic Dark]] [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|52278 Alpha 771]]</span> 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+* '''Delete''' Copyvio, nn, spam etc... [[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]] <sup>[[User_talk:Localzuk|(talk)]]</sup> 11:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' not notable, advert, and in agreement with the points above [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup> 17:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per above, nn, soapbox. --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Sounds like an ad more than anything else. --[[User:Physicq210|physicq210]] 19:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Clearly an advert, no assertion of notability --[[User:JaimeLesMaths|JaimeLesMaths]] 01:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>