Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle Rock Baptist Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eagle Rock Baptist Church[edit]
- Eagle Rock Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable church, no sources Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It will almost certainly have recieved coverage in local papers (All churches generally do; weddings, funerals, special occasions in that parish etc), which count as third party sources, making it worthy of inclusion.--Jaeger123 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notices of weddings in a local paper are trivial. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but they still mention the church, meaning it's verifiable that the church exists, and it's still third party coverage.--Jaeger123 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are still confusing verifiability and notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but they still mention the church, meaning it's verifiable that the church exists, and it's still third party coverage.--Jaeger123 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notices of weddings in a local paper are trivial. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Most individual local churches are non-notable. WP:ORG requires more than just proof of existence: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable organization failing WP:ORG. Just because a church gets desultory coverage by local papers does not mean that it is notable. Bfigura (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete trivial RS coverage limited to weddings/funerals and a passing mention, nothing to establish the notability of this local org per WP:ORG TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:28, 13 April 2008 (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.