Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citywide 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 of the debate was uh...24/4/1 (82% majority), consensus to delete. Mailer Diablo 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citywide Church

Delete This article is only of interest to current and former members. The (recent) pastor (not creator, but regular editor) is using this to promote himself and the church, as well as 'diss ex-members. We don't have a WP:CHURCH, so I use WP:CORP, which this fails. Rob 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The pastor (or recent pastor) has his bio article on AFD. See William Oosterman (AfD discussion). --Rob 00:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nn Royboy crashfan 00:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only claim to notability is association with a former pastor whose own article is receiving unanimous deletion votes. Durova 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm going to hold my nose and vote keep on this. Oosterman and his church have made an impact on the wider stage. Google turns up a fair number of references to their activities from third party sources. I feaar they are notable. Gwernol 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn. This is not Winchester Cathedral or another notable church. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prominently involved in several relatively high-profile controversies in the last few years, discussed in US news media at significant geographical remove. Monicasdude 00:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask that the editors who've made claims of secondary sources list them per WP:CITE. - brenneman ^{L} 00:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are quite right to ask. A quick Google search [1] turns up 100 or so hits, some of them notable, for example [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Gwernol 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lexisnexis does not turn up much for Oosterman and his church: apparently the reverand's dog was stolen last May; a couple of years ago they hired a pedophile to be youth minister; Oosterman was quoted as opposed to women in the ministry in an article about the role of women in his baptist denomination. None of these stories were really about him or Citywide/Westboro. Bucketsofg 00:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into William Oosterman. The man seems notable; this church does not. --Hyperbole 01:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ultimately nn church. Known partly because of Oosterman who appears to be short of WP:BIO and whose (vanity) page is heading for deletion. Scandals may be worthy of note, in such case this church and person could be mentioned in legit pages where they are covered. Deizio 01:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. KHM03 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You chaps should look up the menaing of encyclopedia and related words:

A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. adj : broad in scope or content; "encyclopedic knowledge"

Word History: The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is enkuklios paideia, made up of enkuklios, “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and paideia, “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge. The first such use in English is recorded in 1644. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamo1 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 March 2006

Pastor William Oosterman (I gather that is who you are), do you expect this to change my vote? I know what an encyclopedia is. I also understand the concepts conflict of interest, disclosure, and recusal. Durova 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and carryover effect from related AfD. Also, I like the definition of "encyclopedia" at WP:ENC much better, because it's the only one that matters. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kinu.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu and the relevant articles are pretty weak as an argument for notability. JoshuaZ 05:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also note that this a different church from the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. JoshuaZ 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gwernol. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and KillerChihuahua. Humansdorpie 09:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn church. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. Marcus22 14:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The church seems to be notable enough to pass in its own right. The fact that it needs to be disambiguated at Westboro Baptist Church also suggests that a stub about this church may be necessary. Smerdis of Tlön 17:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No need for a stub, simply a comment at the top of the page works fine. JoshuaZ 20:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article is disambiguated at Westboro Baptist Church only because Williamo1 tried to add a paragraph about the Citywide Church at the top of that article, and someone replaced it with a disambiguation reference (see [6]). Skeezix1000 23:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 17:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to warrant an article. Eusebeus 17:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Skeezix1000 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Durova has convinced me. Optionally, merge useful bits into William Oosterman, who may be a bit condescending above, but he's certainly notable. ProhibitOnions 23:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all others. Arbusto 06:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of those news links. -- 85.169.49.206 14:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that opinions on AfD debates from anon users may be discounted Deizio 14:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)>[reply]

Delete as per nom and other arguments, as well as because this is a case of blatant self-promotion. For a pastor, not too humble. Derekwriter 16:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 16:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nobody cares about some church | A Clown in the Dark 17:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --James 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reads more like an advertisement for the ex-pastor than anything. Members of this church (no longer named "Citywide Church" apparently) likely don't even use Wikipedia and would be upset at the way this page has been created and used as a personal soapbox. Andyru 18:37, 28 March 2006 (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.