Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSI Immanuel Church, salem

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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSI Immanuel Church, salem

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

Non-notable specific church building/congregation. All text is uncited cut'n'paste from Church of South India, but this article is possibly not just an exact content-fork? And a big gallery, all of which that I have spot-checked were copyvios. DMacks (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no context or content at all. Not notable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just guessing: Was someone maybe trying to write an article on another church (some Immanuel Church) and using the Church of South India article as a sort of template? Either way, the Church of South India article exists, we don't need another one with the same text, for whatever reason. There are better places to develop drafts or articles. Isn't this pretty much a case for speedy deletion? --84.190.88.113 (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable church (additionally there is nothing useful to save). It should not be confused with another church which shares the name and is situated in the same state (but in different district). This other one looks like notable though. Anup [Talk] 20:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Nothing in the article, except the title and photos is actually about this church. It is all about the denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2016 (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.