Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revelation Church

: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 redirect to Lovy Elias. And, by the way, an individual church is not what we would consider a "denomination". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

=[[:Revelation Church]]=

:{{la|1=Revelation Church}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Revelation Church}})

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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

::Add: I hadn't realized that this is actually largely covered in context at Lovy Elias, as pointed out by {{u|Jahaza}} below. That makes it doubly unnecessary to have a badly-sourced separate article on this congregation. Suggest redirection to founder. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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)
Delete. Fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
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)

::{{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... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 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/).Iwillkeepitup (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

::::Frankly, no. All three of those seem to be rephrased press releases - i.e. material that the church itself provides, minimally worked up by the press (note that they have essentially identical content). This is the stuff that I found as well, but it is not in-depth coverage, nor independent. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Elmidae}} Honestly, I find it difficult to see your point because it is obvious that these sources are not Press releases, and It is not stated anywhere in the sources that the material was provided by the church. All I see is the editors discussing the church in detail, you don't expect them to write what they don't know just so that they don't say the same thing, a Journalist only writes or says what they can prove from their investigation.Iwillkeepitup (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

:::@Elmidae say what you want to say brother. I've already told my side. This article has enough verification for it's existence. And hence, can be kept to wikipedia. Regardless of that, "all denominations are notable". A deletionist, in most of these cases, are actually affiliated to the subject. Do you, perhaps, know anything or affiliated with the subject? Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 07:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Redirect I think Lovy Elias is probably notable[https://www.the-star.co.ke/sasa/word-is/2019-05-31-lovy-longomba-now-a-prophet/][https://www.voanews.com/a/religious-leaders-immigration/4464543.html], but that the church is so far not independently notable. Therefore, I'd suggest that the article be merged/redirected to Lovy Elias. Jahaza (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep There is the existence of sources of in-depth, independent coverage. Seems like the editor is eager to delete the page.Iwillkeepitup (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Iwillkeepitup (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Iwillkeepitup (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

: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.