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.—
Quarl(
talk) 2006-12-27 09:20Z
Delete non notable, non verifiable. The fact that it reaches out to the GLBT community isn't notable, as there are several other churches that do that (UCC, UU, etc)
Адам РайлиTalk20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)reply
The religious denomination itself has an article (
Metropolitan Community Church); however, it may be that an individual church within the denomination is not encyclopedic. I fail to see how this particular church is "non verifiable" (it does not seem incapable of verification), but I do see how the article fails to assert notability or encyclopedic value. On that, I'll remain neutral on this AfD for now.
Agent 8623:07, 22 December 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.
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.—
Quarl(
talk) 2006-12-27 09:20Z
Delete non notable, non verifiable. The fact that it reaches out to the GLBT community isn't notable, as there are several other churches that do that (UCC, UU, etc)
Адам РайлиTalk20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)reply
The religious denomination itself has an article (
Metropolitan Community Church); however, it may be that an individual church within the denomination is not encyclopedic. I fail to see how this particular church is "non verifiable" (it does not seem incapable of verification), but I do see how the article fails to assert notability or encyclopedic value. On that, I'll remain neutral on this AfD for now.
Agent 8623:07, 22 December 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.