Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winfield Reformed Church (second nomination)

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 of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 11:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winfield Reformed Church

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

The Board of Elders of The Winfield Reformed Church would like to request that this page be deleted. The page has been repeatedly used to spread lies fabricated to ruin the image and peace in the church. These lies are simply untrue and we would appreciate if this page were deleted and similar pages claiming to give information about The Winfield Reformed Church or of our pastor be deleted in the future. If you have any problems or questions, feel free to call the church and we would be happy to speak with you. Thank you. Clsechao 03:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This above nomination was placed on the orginal AfD page by accident. I'm not sure of the policies covering this sort of request for deletion. DarthVader 03:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. It is a very small church and the pastor's alleged abuses have not attracted enough attention in the media to be notable. -- Kjkolb 04:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete out of respect for the church. Not including it in Wikipedia will not change the world or cause any censorship issues. Adambiswanger1 04:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral because it's not a full-on attack page. We don't delete pages just because they have POV issues and some people don't understand the NPOV policy (and WP:NOR). If it's notable, it should have an article no matter what the church says. (Whether it is notable is another matter.) We still have a page on John Seigenthaler Sr., after all. Morgan Wick 04:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable anyway. --Metropolitan90 05:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the second time this article has come up for deletion. On the basis of the nomination alone, I'd lean keep or strong keep, but maybe that's not the point here. After reading the article, the church does not stand up as notable, so I agree with Kjkolb on the delete. —C.Fred (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. As a side note, I have removed the section attacking the pastor. The "evidence" was a foreign language message board post. Message board posts aren't reliable sources. BigDT 06:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for NN, though we don't normally honor such requests. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 08:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not particularly notable. Kevin 09:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It does have a long history, but does not otherwise appear to be notable. The allegations about the pastor do not appear to have received any coverage. --JChap 16:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 00:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Board of Elders have not met to request a delete and there should not be a delete because of negative but true information regarding a notable person and place in New York. californiaccc 22:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of evidence of notability. The history and discussion here make it obvious that people care. The nomination reason is garbage, but that is irrelevant. Now that we are looking at it, does it meet the standards we expect of an encyclopedia article? I sampled about 10 versions out of the last 100 edits in history - none cite any media or otherwise reliable sources except the church's own site and documents. The only assertion of notability was in the attack passage that BigDT appropriately removed. Without notability, it just isn't encyclopedic. GRBerry 02:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Notable place of worship for history it has but controversial pastor is not notable. noshiningman 13:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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.