Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart of God 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of God Church[edit]

[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 only does this article currently serve as little more than free advertising for HOG, but also the sourcing is really threadbare (90% self-published/promotional sources) and I could find nothing to show that this organisation meets GNG. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi King of Lettuce, I hear your considerations. Most parts of this article was written some years back by multiple editors, reading it now I do agree that it could be edited to sound more impartial. Perhaps an edit instead of a deletion. As for the sources, it would be difficult to conclude that the sourcing is threadbare. A majority of the citations in the article are from reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as Singapore’s longest running and most widely circulated daily newspaper. Jchang457 (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately most (all) of these citations do not establish notability. If, for instance, there was an ST piece which had HOG as the main subject, that would be a different story. Numerous trivial mentions do not "stack up" to establish significant coverage. No doubt this "church" is famous enough but we shouldn't conflate fame with notability either. While I'm also trying my best to assume good faith, your only edits have been to this page (the same can be said for the article's creator)--if you have any undisclosed affiliations with HOG, you should probably disclose them and refrain from further editing the page. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 08:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has a lot of promotional cruft in it that needs cleanup, but I think its notability can be reliably established. Here are three sources that pass the bar for independent, reliable, secondary, significant coverage under WP:NORG: Straits Times, Christianity Today, and Channel News Asia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified above, particularly the Christianity Today piece, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is what we mean when we say "clean up is not deletion." Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:06, 18 May 2024 (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.