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, but where the keep votes acknowledge the need for changes. Two sections of the article are straight copies of the movement's website [1], which is copyrighted material, and those parts will be taken away. The nomination mentioned lack of sourcing, but that issue has been addressed by Borock. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Wine[edit]

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

No independent sources for any of the information, written like an advert. SheffGruff (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Badly written article, as noted by nom. But this source indicates that the organization, movement, or whatever is notable. Borock (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- The organisation runs a high profile Carismatic Christian conference. The article may well need improvement, but that is no reason fopr deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Incubate (Wikipedia:ATD-I) - Notability requirement per Wikipedia:NONPROFIT requires third party and reliable sources which have not been found to support almost all of the content. Article also falls foul of Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING as is not objective/unbiased and not verifiable with independent sources. As regards the Christian Today article - as per Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH - is the CT article suitably independent and if so is the audience of the source suitably notable? Even if both of these conditions are met the source doesn't cover most of the article's content. I've tried searching google for news articles related to "New Wine" with Shepton Mallet and the Royal Bath showground among other related search terms and nothing relevant turns up except the results from New Wine's own website, Wikipedia:DEL-REASON point 7 would seem to be met IMO. SheffGruff (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Long article with only 5 references, doesn't seem notable. APerson241 (talk!) 19:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sure there are several notable organisations and/or movements with "New Wine" in their title, but I'm not sure which of them this article is about. -- 202.124.72.14 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2013 (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.