Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granite Bay Hilltop Seventh-day Adventist Church

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 redirect‎ to Amazing Facts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Granite Bay Hilltop Seventh-day Adventist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Granite Bay Hilltop Seventh-day Adventist Church does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:LOCAL. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and California. Shellwood (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that the creator claims on their user page at User:Lets.Custodio to have been WP:PAID to write the article. This should have gone through AFC rather than being created in mainspace. Belbury (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They've now removed this claim. Their explanation of their paid editing is a little confusing. --Belbury (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe this page no longer needs to be deleted, as in agreement with the client (who paid me to make general contributions to wikipedia, without asking me specifically which page I should contribute to), I will deliver another contribution in its place. This makes the contribution to the Granite Bay Hilltop Seventh-day Adventist Church page an unpaid contribution. For this reason, I removed the paid contribution specification from my profile. Lets.Custodio (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but you cannot retroactively declare paid editing to no longer be paid. If the client said "make me 12 Wikipedia articles" and you initially created this article as one of those, going on to say "actually, I'm no longer counting this as one of the 12, which means it isn't paid" is nonsense. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Routine coverage, non-notable structure not listed in the NRHP. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect to Amazing Facts. The church, in and of itself, fails specific and general notability criteria. It's not an unreasonable redirect term to Amazing Facts, but there's no need for a standalone article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect to Amazing Facts per C.Fred. This is one of a series of paid content additions involving some sort of ChatGPT experiment. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lets.Custodio making paid/ChatGPT edits (permalink). Also note that Commons is discussing deletion of the images as copyvios.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect as above. Mathglot (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2023 (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.