Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament Baptist Church[edit]

New Testament Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church, but withdrawn because group nomination was inappropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:29Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. BTW, take a look at the church's founder. Elvis is alive! --MatthewUND(talk) 09:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 11:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is a generic statement that does not comment on the individual article--Jorfer 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. This particular article doesn't make a clear claim to notability on behalf of this particular church which can be verified by reliable sources; consequently, this church does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article in this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I added sources on the bottom which I hope you will consider sufficient--Jorfer 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you delete this you would have to delete many of the churches in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayside Community Church to be fair considering many have less content. This discussion is unfair because many people who would oppose deletion are celebrating Christmas with their family. I am the primary author.--Jorfer 16:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These statements don't constitute reasons to keep the article. The prospect of deleting some other churches which have previously been nominated for deletion would not be problematic to some editors. Also, this nomination was issued on December 26, was active for five days, and was extended again on December 31. --Metropolitan90 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: this seemed like a perfectly well-expressed basis for keeping to me, certainly no worse than "NN local church" as a basis for deletion.  :-) Although precedent is not binding on Wikipedia, we do often use it to inform our decisions, and it is at least reasonable for an editor to suggest that we do so here. -- Visviva 17:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Jorfer wants me to comment on the individual article, the article is unencyclopaedic, written in utterly uncritical terms, and there is no evidence of the reliable secondary sources which could be used to fix that failure of core policy. Or indeed on which to base a verifiable article (another core policy). There is no assertion in this article that this church is in any way remarkable. Most churches are not, after all. Wikipedia is not a directory, and this is a (rather spammy) directory entry. Hopefully Jorfer will accept the validity of this argument, which addresses the individual subject article in some detail. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Criticism is not yet incorporated into the article but can be found in the external links section.--Jorfer 17:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete, there do not appear to be any reliable sources on which a proper encyclopedic article can be based. Will happily reverse vote if such sources are found. -- Visviva 17:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, agree with Visviva. Although the FL Sun-Times article is an independent source, it's a trivial mention. More sources are needed to establish [[WP:N|notability}} - Aagtbdfoua 23:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, the article doesn't seem to provide any useful information. Davidpdx 11:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Dino Pedrone is a proud Italian" !?! Does not appear to satisfy WP:CONG. Edison 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's one sentence. I went ahead and erased it which you could have done. The article may need cleanup, but it does not have to be deleted. Please base your decision on the notability of the church and not the quality of the article.--Jorfer 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Existence on its own is not notable. WMMartin 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Who is arguing that it is?--Jorfer 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable - and large enough to operate a medium sized school. Absoultly no valid reason to delete.-Docg 01:32, 5 January 2007 (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/New_Testament_Baptist_Church_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138127419"