Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination): All existing sources fail to establish notability: Link - Primary Source Link - Appears to be a reliable source with coverage on page 15, but note on page 2 that the author of the coverage on page 15 is/was a senior leader within the subject of the article and thus this source is not independent.  Link .  Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.  Link Primary source Link - Erroneously cited and fails verification.  The citation describes as "Doctrines of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church"; the actual title of the paper is different.  Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.  Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches Link - Primary source Link - Primary source Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.  Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages.  Fails verification for notability.  Link - Primary source Editors arguing for "Keep" in the 2022 non-consensus AfD discussion depended heavily on 2 and 5; however, as I've shown here, 2 is not an independent source for notability, and 5 fails verification.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Christianity ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SIGCOV .  The sources are either a walled garden type or passing mentions in directories.  This is yet another non-notable splinter Calvinist group.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  As this is a 2nd nomination, would prefer a more explicit consensus to delete.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : We usually have problem with sourcing such articles especially when it do contain primary sources and yet, doesn't meet WP:GNG .  For the state of lacking WP:SIGCOV , I can't find any move to redirect, so, I am voting deletion.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  11:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I agree with the source analysis above by several editors.  This subject doesn't seem to meet GNG or any relevant SNG.  BusterD ( talk ) 13:21, 19 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete