Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyChurch

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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. There's kinda-sorta-maybe enough press notice to qualify this article to exists. It's iffy and User:coelacan makes a strong case, but one that ultimately must be labeled "not proven". Herostratus 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MyChurch

MyChurch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable MySpace imitator. Sources don't meet WP:N. This is a blog; blogs don't count toward notability. This certainly looks like a blog and the mention is trivial (one clause in one sentence). This is a fancy press release from a pay-for-coverage marketing company, CMP Media LLC. That leaves only this, an apparently legit article by The Press-Enterprise (California), but the article does not include substantial content about MyChurch; in fact the rather short article is about three different websites at once, MyChurch, MEETfish, and Shmooze, and does not by itself include enough detailed content to prop up a verifiable article about any of those three sites. I conclude that at this time, the article does not pass WP:N. ··coelacan 05:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I went ahead and did some copyediting and adding of refs. The sources are reliable. Just for additional info, the Press Enterprise is indeed a legitimate source. the_undertow ^talk 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• These new refs don't help. The EURweb link is a press release from CR Newswire; as a press release it doesn't help notability and it's not even a reliable source. You've retained the itweek.co.uk or "Thomson" link, which has absolutely trivial coverage (one clause of one sentence) that doesn't count toward WP:N. You've retained the itnews.com.au or "TechWeb" link, which is a pay-for-placement marketing device. Scroll down to the bottom of that TechWeb page and you'll see it says "Copyright (c) 2007 CMP Media LLC". You've found another ref, informationweek.com, which you've presented as separate, when in fact it is an exact duplicate of the itnews.com.au link. Both websites are run by CMP Media LLC. "CMP Media provides targeted technology media and innovative marketing solutions to companies seeking access to the entire technology audience spectrum -- builders, sellers and buyers -- worldwide."[1] That's marketing jargon for "you tell us what you need printed, we print it for a price". Here are their services; I believe this one is what they call an "advertorial". What's left is the pe.com (Press-Enterprise) link again, which is still covering three websites at once, in no substantial detail to write a verifiable article from. Take away the bought-and-paid-for advertising from MyChurch itself, and there's non-trivial left over to work from. ··coelacan 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, I'm going to use another Source. This is an article written by a member of the Associated Press and featured in the Christian Post. This AP article mentions MyChurch to a degree in which enough information can be extracted and referenced reliably. the_undertow ^talk 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Follow Up - Thanks for pointing out the duplicate article. I removed the redundant source. the_undertow ^talk 19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I had actually heard of this before I saw this request, and it is properly sourced. I believe due to its mention in media and its nature, it deserves to be kept. Josh 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Hopefully the article will be expanded.Doc13mets 18:39, 25 May 2007 (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.