Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Life Assembly
This same editor (Neelix) has also created another church article that is similarly non-notable but over-cited on trivial matters Five Stones Church, and has defended it pointing to the Stanford Memorial Church's inclusion of the same kind of event-calendar type info as if that was why it was notable, and why it made Featured Article, when clearly the comparison between a local new church and a major university's cathedral-like and historic structure was valid, which it clearly isn't.  I placed spam and notability templates on that article, and on a paired/related article Heritage Grill, which he peremptorily removed, saying that his citations were fine and because he thought they were notable, they are; I replaced them, and he has since been defending both articles on their talkpages, and challenging me to an AfD I haven't had time (or patience/energy) to launch.  That this is similarly non-notable and for many of the same reasons and is the same kind of non-notable article/organization and this AfD resonates with my question about ''why'' he's so ardently presenting these churches as notable, when they're clearly not in relation to many much more notable churches, including in the city (New Westminster) which have several on the heritage register and are highly signficant, but have no articles.  Not just notability is an issue here, but spam of a certain kind, and as I point out on the Five Stones Church talkpage, how it is that someone in distant Nova Scotia decides that obscure new churches in BC are notable "oh I just found them, I thought they were interesting" is being both coy and disingenuous.  He's been ''challenging'' me to AfDs there, in the meantime I've spent my energies improving the New Westminster article and preparing needed subarticles, after having taken out his plugging of them on the city page.  Not just , but  and questionable and rather trivial sources especially in the case of the New Westminster item where they're advertorial in nature.  And an imputation of COI which he denies but it's a denial I find highly dubious.  Wikipedia is not a community bulletin board, nor is it to be used for promotional purposes, and that's the ''only'' reason, in my opinion, these articles were created.  I venture that a review of his other recent creations may demonstrate a similar pattern
— User:Skookum1, 18:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:SPAM (Wikipedia:Notability)