Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Life Assembly - Wikipedia


Article Images
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. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despite a few mentions in the local media, I don't think this local church is itself notable per our guidelines at WP:ORG. Specifically, I don't think the church is notable enough for an encyclopedia article because its steeple fell down, see WP:NOTNEWS, and the other news items are about other people or events that happen to be connected with the church. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This church has received far more coverage than is required by our notability guidelines. In addition to the two books and eight newspaper articles currently cited in the article, a quick Google News search reveals plenty of potential sources for this article. Neelix (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This same editor (Neelix) has also created another church article that is similarly non-notable but over-cited on trivial matters Five Stones Church, and has defended it pointing to the Stanford Memorial Church's inclusion of the same kind of event-calendar type info as if that was why it was notable, and why it made Featured Article, when clearly the comparison between a local new church and a major university's cathedral-like and historic structure was valid, which it clearly isn't. I placed spam and notability templates on that article, and on a paired/related article Heritage Grill, which he peremptorily removed, saying that his citations were fine and because he thought they were notable, they are; I replaced them, and he has since been defending both articles on their talkpages, and challenging me to an AfD I haven't had time (or patience/energy) to launch. That this is similarly non-notable and for many of the same reasons and is the same kind of non-notable article/organization and this AfD resonates with my question about why he's so ardently presenting these churches as notable, when they're clearly not in relation to many much more notable churches, including in the city (New Westminster) which have several on the heritage register and are highly signficant, but have no articles. Not just notability is an issue here, but spam of a certain kind, and as I point out on the Five Stones Church talkpage, how it is that someone in distant Nova Scotia decides that obscure new churches in BC are notable "oh I just found them, I thought they were interesting" is being both coy and disingenuous. He's been challenging me to AfDs there, in the meantime I've spent my energies improving the New Westminster article and preparing needed subarticles, after having taken out his plugging of them on the city page. Not just WP:N, but WP:SPAM and questionable and rather trivial sources especially in the case of the New Westminster item where they're advertorial in nature. And an imputation of COI which he denies but it's a denial I find highly dubious. Wikipedia is not a community bulletin board, nor is it to be used for promotional purposes, and that's the only reason, in my opinion, these articles were created. I venture that a review of his other recent creations may demonstrate a similar pattern.Skookum1 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure that some of those news reports are sufficient to establish notability. They look to me to be the type that tends to report all local news because that's what readers want. It's as if I wrote an article on our local community hall because all the funerals and community events are held there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources for this article; surely these are sufficient to pass our general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Those are all only the kinds of non-notable community news that does not establish notability, of the exact kind the CambridgeBayWeather is saying do not count. You should read WP:N again.Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is not true. See, for example, [1] and [2]. There are plenty of Google Books hits as well. Neelix (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The land deal is not relevant news to establish notability, the review/advertorial by the Sun's religion reporter is also not valid to establish notability. His job is to write promotional pieces. As for the googelbooks, self-referential cites from the evangelical movement are questionable and also do not establish notability....WP:SPAM citations. Part of a media and publishing campaign for a particular faith, little more. Notability is not about applause by believers and is not established by books written by them. Or Wikipedia articles, either.Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see nothing in the relevant guidelines to suggest that these sources are not valid for establishing notability, as you have suggested. If the two articles I mention above are not considered valid, I cannot imagine a source that would be valid. Neelix (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is WP:BRANCH, surely a merger is more appropriate than deletion. Neelix (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues are brought up in that proposal are WP:BALANCE and WP:COI and WP:NOTDIR of church buildings associated with an organization in Vancouver. If we had list articles for every church it's an indiscriminate list. Mkdwtalk 21:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove is a featured list and plenty of its entries do not have their own articles; this isn't an indiscriminate list. Surely a merger to List of places of worship in Greater Vancouver would be appropriate. Neelix (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't lead off with an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument especially when the two lists you are comparing are in my opinion, not with in the same ballpark. I have nominated your recently created list for AFD as well under WP:NOTDIR. I would like to point out that the buildings listed at List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove are "Statutory List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest" -- essentially historic heritage buildings -- recognized by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and even protected under government acts such as the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 with buildings dating back to the 1780s and plenty in the 1800s. The newly created list you have made is simply a loosely created list of any place of worship and not seemingly grouped together except for the first time by you on Wikipedia and arguably closing in on WP:SYNTHESIS. If you think it should be merged you should change your !vote instead of bargaining for me to change my !vote to one you do not believe in. Considering the article exists, for now, I would support a redirect at best with prejudice in re-creating an article that attempts establish notability of a BRANCH building or organization using run of the mill coverage. Mkdwtalk 06:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just had a look at the references. If the two books used as citations are by congregation members they're self-referential and not valid at all as citations. The 1980 Vancouver Sun article is not a link, can't be reviewed, and the content that it's used to cite seems to be misleading about what that article appears to be about, i.e. trivial bit of information about a land deal that there were political questions about re Langley. And what also got my attention was Tara Teng, who is plugged also on Five Stones Church and Heritage Grill (or was, until I removed material on the latter about film screenings (which may have been restored, I don't know) and so I went and looked at her article. Definitely notable as a Miss Canada, but very much an overwritten article with lots of non-notable content and a plethora of cites.....and except for maybe ten, all the edits since that article was created only this last March 28, 2013, were by User:Neelix. My issue about apparent COI is thereby underscored, as these articles were all created and on the same themes and religious affiliation, and the Tara Teng article is, in my opinion, overblown, though it's so long WP:TLDNR.Skookum1 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Neelix (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of signficant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The only mentions I can find are mentions in the local press of a trivial, tangential or routine nature, usually based on the groups own press releases and publicity materials, and books by non-independent members of the group. There seems to be some puffery and source massaging going on, as well as blatant promotion. As such, the topic falls far short of any of out notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the rule side: There is a lack of significant coverage in independent secondary sources. On the common sense side: There is nothing in the article that would suggest notability. --Bejnar (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2013 (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.