Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynwood Baptist Church

Add links
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 keep. BigDom (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynwood Baptist Church[edit]

Lynwood Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local church. Virtually all hits are mere event listings. (Not speedied because "one of the largest churches in Southeast Missouri" is enough claim of importance or significance to avoid it.) Church spam. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Tone is was promotional as well. VQuakr (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree as well. It sounds promotional in nature. Aquabanianskakid (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please revisit the article, which has been despammed. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG, obviously it is making headlines.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unscintillating's links show nothing more than passing mentions, solicited quotations from pastor, event announcements, etc., in the local Cape Girardeau newspaper. Coverage fails to meet the requirements set forth in WP:CORPDEPTH. Deor (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So much for careful analysis, here we go with a one-sided comment (no constructive aspects) blowing smoke on the current issue with no documentation of independent research.  I don't know anything about semissourian, but according to the Wikipedia article it is a regional newspaper, "The Southeast Missourian is a daily newspaper published in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, United States, and serves (as the name implies) the southeastern portion of Missouri."  Just looking at the first article on the list, www.semissourian.com/story/1697007.html, it is twelve paragraphs long, focused on a "student" pastor, and has extensive in-depth coverage of the church.  Obviously, if a student pastor is worth this much attention this is a huge church.  Calling this article a "passing mention" is an embarrassment to reason, and I think the closing admin should assign zero weight to the previous comment.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I've linked four of the articles listed by Unscintillating for easier access. A look at the Southeast Missourian's [contact page] suggests that it is a fully-staffed professional newspaper worth serious consideration as a reliable source, so I don't consider that an issue. While the other three articles are, indeed, passing mentions or event listings, these four deserve additional consideration. Only the second linked one can be said to be directly about the church, though the third linked one comes very close. After a good bit of consideration, I have to say "very close but not quite" and maintain my delete !vote. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC) After further consideration, not close at all, see below. TM[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular talk 13:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: additional analysis of Unscintillating's sources would be useful. Jujutacular talk 13:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of that coverage actually is about the church, and not just passing mentions. The question is: Does a few articles that pass WP:RS but from a SINGLE newspaper qualify as notable? Due to the quality of the reporting (not drive by mentions), I'm inclined to say keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
self-whack! You're right to be concerned about the single source: WP:GNG requires more than one source and says that multiple reports from the same source should be treated as a single source for adjudging notability (see the "Sources" bullet point). Moreover, the nonprofit organization notability guideline suggests that organizations should not be deemed to be notable unless they, or their activities, are national in scope. Only one of the listed articles suggests an activity (a college degree cosponsored by the church) which could be regarded to be national in scope. The uncertainty I may have suggested in my last comment above is no longer a factor, and I firmly reassert my delete !vote. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the guidelines don't say multiple, they say If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That can be taken many ways. While multiple sources are always preferable, and in the case of contentious material, required, the consensus has always been to view the totality of the sources. Granted, best case scnario, this squeaks by, but multiple non-related coverage by the same source isn't trivial and guidelines are just that: guidelines. You have to consider the totality of the coverage. No where in WP:GNG does it say their activities have to be 'national' in scope, nor does it even use that word on the entire page. For instance, Lexington Barbecue Festival certainly isn't national, but it is notable and cited. Again, this is a close call, but I wanted to clarify the reasoning and make it clear that no article is required to be national in scope to be included. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Directly from WP:GNG: "Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." "Generally expected" is a far cry from your "always preferable," and there is no way around these sources being considered a single source. While "generally" and "usually" certainly admit of some flexibility, what's the case for this garden-variety local church to be an exception to those general principles? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've done a full edit on the piece for style, despamming it heavily in the process. Delete voters might want to pay another visit to the page to see whether it is not now something they can live with. The lack of sources showing does NOT indicate necessarily the lack of sources out there. I believe this can be corrected through the normal editing process and that this article should be tagged for sources and kept around for a while. There is no requirement, by the way, that multiple sources need to come from multiple PUBLICATIONS, only that they be independent in origin and reliable in content. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See the partial list provided by Unscintillating above, which demonstrates that multiple, independent, reliable sources DO exist. Flag article for sources, keep, improve. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work deboning it. I did add the moreref tag, as the current citations are marginal at best. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Almost 50 years and 'one of the largest'. Jtbobwaysf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep based on in-depth coverage in at least one local paper, this article can be improved. Good job improving the tone of the article. VQuakr (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage of this church in the mainstream media is sufficiently in-depth to satisfy notability standards. Of the articles referenced above, I found the August 2010 feature story ("Bible Study Center, Women's Shelter First Components of Lynwood Baptist Church's Greater Things Vision") to be especially strong evidence of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would like to see more information, maybe three or four more paragraphs, but the article should be kept. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynwood_Baptist_Church&oldid=1140391208"