Talk:Lovy Elias

I propose that the section about Revelation Church of Jesus Christ be split into a separate page called Revelation Church. The content of the section is only marginally related to the main article, and this section is large and well-sourced enough to make its own page. You can also see what other editors have to say about it in the just concluded Deletion Review (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_November_7).Iwillkeepitup (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriname0, GünniX, BrownHairedGirl, X4n6, Niceguyedc, Frank Anchor, CT55555, Jclemens, 4meter4, Ploreky, and ...:.Iwillkeepitup (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I am not seeing the sourcing improved to the point that the church would pass our notability criteria at WP:ORG. A spin out article would just end up being taken back to AFD and then redirected to this article a second time.4meter4 (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing to split this article since it contains two distinct topics see WP:CONSPLIT.Iwillkeepitup (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but a split article still has to pass WP:GNG and in this case WP:ORG. Read the opening of Wikipedia:Splitting, where it states splitting can occur "only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia." 4meter4 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Oppose, my brief reading of this situation is to agree with the above comment. And I think you should make the article via the articles for creation process. And if you want my support, show us three reliable sources with significant coverage and I'll reverse my opinion. CT55555(talk) 14:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the links below are reliable sources and demonstrate significant coverage of the subject (https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/02/the-ministry-of-revelation-church-california-united-states/), (https://guardian.ng/news/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-revelation-church/), (https://dailytrust.com/revelation-church-dedicates-8-7m-new-worship-centre), (https://tribuneonlineng.com/revelaton-church-of-jesus-christ-to-hold-first-good-friday-service/).Iwillkeepitup (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I would not consider these independent references. The sources read like press releases and lack bylined authors. The Vanguard piece has a disclaimer at the bottom which seems to indicate they did not write the content; and it seems to indicate it is a press release authored by the church and its staff. The Guardian piece has no named author and there are some obvious misuse of terms like denomination that bring its reliability as a whole into question as a source. The Daily Trust is obviously a press release about a church building project and has no byline for a reason. Tribune magazine is obviously another press release avdertising an upcoming Good Friday service. See WP:ORGIND and WP:MULTSOURCES which explains that press releases lack independence. Independent sources are required to substantiate notability per WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. It would be helpful to find some publications with a named author, and which cover material on the organization that is not obviously connected to a promotional press release.4meter4 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this comment. VickKiang (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The article doesn't seem long enough to necessitate a split, and I don't think the Relevation church content is out of place; it feels perfectly in-keeping with biographical details on Elias (who founded and runs the church in question). Further, if split, I agree with discussions above that WP:GNG doesn't seem to be met (yet). Suriname0 (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as long as you can give enough identification, sources, cites, and article story, as stated in WP:RELIG/N. And as long as you can prove its notability, and have enough story to it. In the first place, religions need to have a separate article from its founder. Ploreky^{Have a chat?(contribs)} 02:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Responded to the ping. But unfortunately IMO there is simply insufficient RS to justify a split. A spare handful of online mentions, which are focused primarily on the founder of the church, not the church itself, do not make the case for independent notability. Just the opposite, actually. What would a separate article even say that supports notability and is reliably sourced, that doesn't depend primarily on its founder's notability for its own? Honestly, this effort just looks like a well-meaning but misguided vanity project from a good faith, single-topic editor with an obvious affiliation to the subject; but seeking to use WP to promote and advertise the subject and his church. But that is not this project's purpose. Recommend user read WP:PROMO, specifically WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTADVERT to understand what WP is not. The article already had to be cleaned of excessive non-encyclopedic, NPOV content. Also recommend the user review WP:COI. X4n6 (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Firstly, WP:SIZESPLIT is not compelling, as the current article about Lovy Elias is merely a start class article, a content split is unnecessary. Moreover, Revelation Church fails WP:NORG. This is a press-release like listicle without any byline, this is a routine announcement on a Easter program, this is an announcement column without a byline stating that the church opened (fails WP:CORPDEPTH, only has routine details and quotes), whereas this primarily covers the founder, along with stating routine timeline details (i.e., founding date, date in which the church started to stream online, headquarter relocation). and also fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Therefore, none of the references demonstrate independent notability for the church. (Also, Iwillkeepitup, I was one of the DRV participants, and voted neutral so I probably don't need to be pinged. It looks like you are planning to ping more users, so it might be a good idea for you to ping a couple of DRV voters who voted endorse as well to get a wider consensus. Thanks.) VickKiang (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]