Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation Seventh Day Adventist 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears non-notable, Google "Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church" -wikipedia -forum only returns 37 unique hits. However disputes over name may make it notable. Rich Farmbrough, 13:59 17 December 2006 (GMT).

Hi Zahakiel, you're a member of the church I understand? Please have a read of WP:COI. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:02 17 December 2006 (GMT).

Comment removed as per WP:COI, thanks. Zahakiel 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete: While I'm usually sympathetic to keeping breakway movements from established churches, this appears to be only a single local congregation. On that basis I think they're non-notable. If they spread to other congos, my opinion would change. They may qualify on the basis of the domain dispute, but that shouldn't be the major part of the article: I'm more interested in how they distinguish themselves from other SDA churches. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep for most the same reasons as by Bpmullins and for the fact that it is a footnote in history that at some point might need to be explained. Alf photoman 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, potentuially realte all Seventh-day Adventist Church edit wars in WikipediaRaveenS 14:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because the name controversy is relevant to issues in Adventism and there are definitely things on Wikipedia less notable than this. Camael 00:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as they are a denomination, not merely a church, and show notable notable doctrinal innovation.--OinkOink 09:49, 24 December 2006 (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.