Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormon Expression

Mormon Expression

Mormon Expression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a website/podcast/blog, let alone fulfilling the requirements of WP:GNG. PROD was removed, sources given are at least an order of magnitude below covering rule 2 on WP:WEB#Criteria. tedder (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Sources indicating notability have been added. This is probably the most important Mormon-themed podcast on the internet, with 15,000 weekly downloads. This should not be deleted.Watonga (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - sources from a quick Google search appear similar to the two that are already in the article - blogs and similar non-reliable sources. If some of them turned out to actually be well regarded within their niche, I could be convinced that this should be a weak keep instead. We really need a few editors with a better feel for what can be considered good sources for what effectively amounts to LDS pop culture. I am posting a link to this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Additional source has been added to show relationship to Mormon Stories podcast, which is well-known in the Mormon blogging community.--Nathan T. (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. tedder (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Point is that sources have been added. Isn't about ITSAWombat24 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Which sources? They are primary sources and self-published/blogs. They are not reliable sources, they are sources indicating this exists, nothing more. There are zero reliable sources establishing WP:WEB or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep New article; which needs some more time to grow into a article that will meet WP:WEB. Deleting the page so early only serves as a quasi-censorship act in wikipedia and seems to be religiously motivated since the podcast is generally not friendly to the mormon church.Wombat24 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do explain how this is religiously motivated and how it is censorship. Content that is from a positive or negative point of view still needs to meet the notability guidelines. tedder (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Solely based on the fact that I have heard of it before I knew there was an article for it, so my general (if unscientific) sense is there is some notability. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)