Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest Bible Chapel

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 No consensus. —Sean Whitton / 12:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Bible Chapel[edit]

Non-notable church. Only sources are primary, and plenty of linkspam present. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 02:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to merge & redirect to founder James MacDonald (pastor), who does seem to be notable on the grounds of widespread radio syndication and a number of books written. --Stormie (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most churches are not notable, some are. And yes, Wikipedia is not a church directory. This church, I believe, is notable due to its size and rapid growth. I'd ask for editors to develop the article more before we make a final decision.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and reads like marketing collateral. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News search [1]shows some sources which appear to satisfy the demand for multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage. The Chicago Tribune Feb. 2, 2005 [2]noted the unique "franchise" nature of the church's expansion congregations, where the "franchise" sites serve up the same music, sermons and videos. The Daily Herald has had many dozens of articles about the church (behind paywall) such as [3] and [4] and [5]. Delete The refs cited are all the church's own sites. Independent and reliable refs are needed to show notability. Having 10,000 claimed attendance or having several daughter churches do not by themselves make this one notable. Are there books, magazine articles or newspaper articles about the church. especially ones showing it had more than a local effect? See WP:CONG , a proposed notability guideline (now tagged "rejected") for some ideas on how the notability of a church building or congregation can be demonstrated. Edison (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious having 10,000 in attendance would put this church in the top tier in attendance in the world. Why would that in itself not be notable?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Claims of large church attendance may be exaggerations intended to boost notoriety. There is no auditing process and no legal penalty for misrepresenting. In this case, there is no reference which says that is the attendance. Membership claims of some churches are likewise over-representations, including many who have quit participating, but have not been dropped from the rolls.Edison (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response true, but that is certainly not always the case, and many large churches have auditors to review many aspects of the church. Does this one? Not sure...--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF acceptable sources are included into the article. Radioinfoguy (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article reads like an advertisement, but the organization may be notable because it's one of the first "religious franchises". See "It worked for burgers, now churches try franchising.". It's not the first church franchise, or the biggest, though. The current cites don't support much notability. --John Nagle (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources presented by Edison suggest that the church is notable. The article needs some work. At the moment, it is poorly written. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 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.