Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order of the Black Sheep

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. Tone 22:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Black Sheep

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

Non notable organization. Notability isn't inherited from bassist. Not finding independent verification. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(with regret) Delete -- I am far from sure if this is supposed to be a church or a music group. In either case it seems NN. Conceivably a short summary might be merged to Chesterfield. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The Order has been covered by nationally and internationally, gaining discussion from interested parties. http://www.mauce.nl/site/uncategorized/the-gates-the-order-of-the-black-sheep, http://www.pcusa.org/news/2011/10/18/wave-spirit/, http://www.pres-outlook.com/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/11951-a-wave-of-the-spirit-fresh-expressions-of-church-taking-root-in-the-uk.html and http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=016368. It seems clear to me that a reading of the article clearly shows that the order is a "New Monastic", faith based order, commissioned as a Fresh Expression within the Church of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.169.220 (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but forums, blogs and unreliable sources don't demonstrate notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 08:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:SELFPUB. Most citations are the group's own website, two are from music websites, and another requires a subscription to view the article. Mariepr (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2011 (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.