Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirelive

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 May 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 . Article has since its creation included a major segment of text copied directly from the subject website. There is no verification of permission to use this material although the creator has been notified how to do so and the matter has been listed for more than seven days. There is no clean version to revert to. In addition consensus seems to be that even if the church may be notable, the current article doesn't verify or properly address this. There is no prejudice against creation of a new copyright-infringement free article on this church, provided that it verifies that it meets notability guidelines with proper reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shirelive[edit]

Non-notable church. No reliable sources asserting notability have been provided. The article is promotional in nature and large chunks of it appear to have been lifted directly from the official site. Mattinbgn\^talk 11:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I marked the copied text as a copyright violation. What remains isn't much. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to abstain for now, but if this is a large church, certainly there's some notability? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A church that seats 1200 is not exceptionally large. The bar for megachurch is usually drawn at 2000. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, good point. Delete. No really good coverage. Somebody change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory glance suggests there's been a deal of media coverage of this church, although most of it in conjunction with the controversy surrounding Matt Corby's Australian Idol appearances. Re the 1200 versus 2000 seats, nowhere is there a guideline that a church has to be a megachurch to be notable. Indeed, with the average congregation size in Australian churches at less than 60-70 (the figure it was eight years ago, 1,200 is notable. Having said all that, the challenge with this and similar articles is around keeping WP:NPOV Murtoa (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being large does not make it interesting or notable.--Grahame (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be interesting to be notable. I agree that size isn't everything, which was why I was responding to the point that it wasn't megachurch in size. Murtoa (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes no attempt to claim significance, importance, or notability. Drawn Some (talk) 03:43, 28 April 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.