Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis)

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 keep. NW (Talk) 21:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis)[edit]

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

contested prod. not clear how this church is notable. RadioFan (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To John Piper (theologian) as he appears notable. Most references to the church are to him as well (large number, in fact). Collect (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rather more notable than the average church, given its history and size. It is a multi-location or "chain church", as discussed in this article. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is simply one local article, only peripherally about the organization in question. "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability," from WP:N. Tb (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a substantial article given the history of a church that has been around for 130 years. It would be a waste for it to be deleted. Most of the artivcle is NOT about the present long-serving pastor, so that merging with his article or redirecting to it would be utterly inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- per 130 yr history, and all manner of notability criteria, as shown by a simple google search.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's so trivially obvious, can you do more than google searches, and show us some non-local articles which are about BBC as a prime focus of the article? Tb (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now included a number of both local and non-local RSs as refs in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Long history or having multiple sites are not, in themselves, notability. There is this one article which mentions it as an example of a growing social phenomenon (cited above by Eastmain). That's not notability. Tb (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the guideline allows us to look at that as indicia of notability where it would otherwise fail.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if it were notable, it would have been noted more than that. It's a judgment call, and my judgment is, not notable. One article, one time? Tb (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline that allows us to keep an article based on the long history of the subject is when the subject would not otherwise meet the notability criteria. So this seems to me a perfect situation to apply that exception. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is not simply that anything which has been around a hundred years passes notability even if nobody talks much about it in the world at large. Tb (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the mention that longevity may be taken into account, does not supercede the requirement that notability be more than purely local. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." Is there evidence from outside the area of notability? There is, AFAICT, mentions of this organization only in one local newspaper article. If that's it, it's not notable. If there is more, there has been ample opportunity to establish it. Note that the lack of notability is impeding the ability of the article to be based upon verifiable sources. Indeed, nothing in the article is sourced; there are no independent sources of information to establish even the basic question of how long the organization has been around, the names of its leaders, when services were in different languages, etc. The only sources seem to be unpublished internally produced histories of the organization. Consider how tiny this article would be if we removed that which is not verifiable under WP:V! Tb (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not clear to me that wp:before has been followed. See this and this and this. This church passes for notability on a number of levels. Longevity -- evidenced by the sources, is simply one of them, and the fastest way for me to note it. But I do think that before people nom an article for deletion wp:before suggests that it is incumbent upon them to spend 2 minutes doing a google search.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I did of course searche, and what I found was consistently mention that someone was a member, and only local press. Piper is mentioned all the time (no doubt he's notable), and BBC comes up, again and again, as where he is pastor, but not as the subject of the article. If we prune the obits, the articles about Piper, and so forth, we don't actually get anything notable: and, here's the kicker, we don't get anything to verify any of the stuff in the article. As an example, see that if you exclude "-Piper" from the Google Scholar search, suddenly you have only sixteen cites, you find that none of them is actually about BBC. If you think the article can satisfy verifiability, don't you think it should be possible to find verifiable sources for the stuff in the article so easily, given your confidence? I looked, and I couldn't find any. Perhaps the thing to do is to pepper it with citation needed tags, wait a months, remove the non-verifiable stuff, and then start the AfD again, with evidence that there is virtually nothing verifiable and non-self-published to rely on in writing the article. (Start with this: what, pray tell, were the sources used by the article's authors?) Tb (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I totally assumed good faith (even in the above). I just questioned whether despite good faith a wp:before review was engaged it. wp:org also has language re, if the depth of the refs is not as much as we generally would like, but the refs are many, notability can also be evidenced. If I have time, I will look at the hits more, with your comments in mind, though. As far as their source, it may have been this.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be even more productive to focus on verifiability, remembering that self-published sources, blogs, etc., are no good. Since both WP:V and WP:N are independent requirements, I suspect that if you (or the page's authors) could find actual verifiable secondary sources for the many statements made in the article, the issue of notability would be settled. And, if you (or they) can't find any such sources, then the article should be removed for that reason. (Note that the book you refer to is self-published, and is not sufficient to function as a source of verifiablity, or evidence of notability.) Tb (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've taken a few minutes and added a few. Even ignoring the self-published material, there is enough in the article now to confirm its 130 year old history, and if anyone wants to use google they can add more sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added one self-published resource, but it's hard not to be suspicious. Do you have a copy of the book? Did you examine it? Let's assume, no. So what we have is one source in a directory, and still no independent verifiable anything about the church. I think it's time to edit the article to remove all that cannot be verified. Shall we? Tb (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. We now have 10 sources between the references and ELs. The existence of each of those can be confirmed by the inline link. 5 are secondary, 4 are primary, and the last 1is in the middle but closer perhaps to primary (Baptist General Conference of America).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have to say, so far it's a whole lot of nothing. A lot of primary historical sources from an archive (which makes the article prohibited original research) and a few mentions. Look, notability is about people, outside the organization, taking note, on a broad and not local basis. That just hasn't happened. And the catalog of archive sources isn't itself a source: only the actual documents would be, and have you checked those?! Tb (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that primary sources don't count towards notability. But "prohibited original research" to refer to them? I didn't think so. Can you point to where that is stated? Perhaps I missed it. I belive that we do have some sources now beyond original sources. Where I couldn't get into the original source, I listed it as an EL rather than as a ref supporting any proposition. That way if this survives, people will know of its existence and can pursue it if they are interested.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This 130 year old church is clearly notable. A lengthy history, and is described as "a flagship congregation of the Baptist General Conference". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a citation that is about Piper, and not about BBC, and, once again, a directory source. Tb (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm looking at the same source. Jayjg's quote is about the church (as is much of the other text in the paragraph he took it from). And I don't know what you mean when you say this is a "directory source". The author does not appear to be connected at all to the church. I actually think this was a great find by Jayjg.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have a 130 year old tree in my backyard. It doesn't have any reliable sources though. Cynof Gavuf 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There really ought to be some descriptions of it in conventional 3rd party sources in that time. Does the city have no newspapers? Has nobody written a book about the churches in general? Has no one outside the local church written a book or historical article published by someone other than the church and discussed it? However, this is not a problem with respect to V. For routine facts about an organization, it's own web site and publications are acceptable unless theye matter is challenged or controversial. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There essentially are none. That's because it's not notable. Tb (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are, and a number have now been added to the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources to establish notability. Crafty (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now,. Zondervan is a very reputable publisher in the field. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on totality of merit, including history, size, third-party non-local reliable sources, etc. Not a strong keep because it's still in the "judgment call" area, but I call it as a keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a number of RS refs today, including one in which C. Douglas Weaver, Director of Undergraduate Studies and Associate Professor of Religion at Baylor University, has called "the best-known congregation in the Baptist General Conference at the turn of the 21st century".--Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per both Jayjg and DGG. History and description by self is enough. Sources added by Epeefleche make that a clear keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is little consensus here, and given the new references that have been added which would make good references showing the notability of John Piper (theologian), seems like a merge is a good compromise here.--RadioFan (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RF. Actually, I see it slightly differently on two counts. First, there may well be a keep consensus expressed above, and the delete votes were largely cast before the full complement of RS refs were added. Second, all 18 refs relate to the church, but few if any are used in the article to discuss Piper.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2009 (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.