Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethany World Prayer Center

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 after looking at Trevj sources. Out of all the sources that he listed, the closest to making the church meets GNG was the first one (the rest are press releases and trivial mentions). Make this a WP:SOFTDELETE however as there might be some sources that aren't online or though paywalls. Secret ^account 02:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany World Prayer Center[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this church. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Megachurches are generally notable, and a gnews search reveals significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Megachurches are not automatically notable. A Google News search reveals routine local coverage from The Advocate and trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I created the article in response to a dead link on the Ted Haggard article; Haggard's first ministry work was at this church and there was significant coverage of Bethany when his homosexuality scandal broke. I'll also say that this church is intertwined with Evangelical politics significantly and it is possible to find references to this online. I can believe this is not enough to warrant true notability, but we may want to correct articles referencing this one to point to the Bethany web-site if the article is deleted. If the article is retained, mention of Haggard should definitely be added! fondfire (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A church of this size should be notable. However this is not a good article and needs to be taggged for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no proof of notability. SL93 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Having primarily local coverage is not necessarily a deal breaker. Afterall, you'd expect most of the news about Louisiana State University to be from news sources around Louisiana. However, it seemed that the ONLY source of information on this church was from one paper: The Advocate. Further, the nature of these mentions seemed to be very much of the run-of-the-mill variety. The Church is having a bake sale. The Church is having a clothing drive. The Church is having a fund-raising car wash. That kind of thing. Nothing of real substance. Even the Ted Haggard connection is problematic. He was in and out of that church a couple decades before he was notable for anything. Besides, notability is not inherited. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Shinmawa. Routine coverage in local sources is great for expanding an article, but is not enough to achieve notability per WP:ORG. A religious congregation is not inherently notable just because it is called a megachurch, or because it owns a building with a large seating capacity, or because it claims to have thousands of members (there is little or no auditing of membership and attendance claims for some churches). It does not automatically become notable because Haggard worked there, though if Haggard had received widespread coverage in reliable and independent sources for something he did there it would lend notability to the church. It would not be surprising if the church had gotten some coverage in nonlocal sources for nonroutine events, but it is not presented at the article and hasn't been presented here either. It is incumbent on anyone asserting notability to point out the adequate references, though they can leave it to others to add them to the article. Edison (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG.[1][2][3][4](from [5]) The coverage I found is far from extensive but seems to be more than just local. Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, because this isn't a topic area I'm familiar with. -- Trevj (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2013 (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.