Wikipedia talk:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Previous Discussion

This is a previous discussion on the subject of church notability

[edit] Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc

Every day many articles are started about individual churches and every day there are AFD discussions. I do not want to see all churches included, and I do not want to see all chrch articles deleted. I would appreciate some criteria for the sake of consistency and to reduce repetitious arguing.. The first criterion people cite is size. Megachurches with thousands of members are probably noteworthy but the biggest churches are not necessarily the most encyclopedic, any more than the largest colleges are. I am looking for criteria which would allow other churches to be included, just as smaller colleges have articles Princeton University. A church might be historic Old North Church or have a place in the civil rights struggle, or be the site where gospel music was first sung, or be the place where a President of the U.S. taught Sunday School. But how does one specify how historically important it must be? It could be architecturally or artistically important (designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, or with murals by Chagall). What are the criteria for such cultural importance? It might be religiously important (Here the doctrine of blah blah was first enunciated by Rev xxx in 1815, so it the birthplace of the xyz denomination). It could be a small church but still a noteworthy and notable one. How can this last categroy be delineated? Newspaper and magazine articles? Awards or recognition from the denomination or from nondenominational bodies? Distinguishing the building from the denomination, how large or important does a religious denomination have to be to merit an article?Edison 07:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that anything out of the ordinary would be interesting. Most churches don't have anything out of the ordinary about them. The key is for it to be reported independently by a reliable source. This means that we don't have to push our own point of view about notability - the independent sources have decided that it is notable. Stephen B Streater 08:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think any Church with a congregation of a certain size or higher, is notable. Any church that has X number of viewers, subscribers, etc.. is notable. Any church that has spent X dollars on political actions, notable. Any church who's Minister is notable, is notable. I would use similar criteria for any company, but with different numbers. Mathiastck 17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is arbitrary, and there's no reasonable way to decide what X should be. —Centrx→talk • 17:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaningful news coverage as always is the threshold, to determine whether or not we could actually write a useful article. A piece about the history of the church, it's role in the community and so on is a good start. Stuff announcing services or a wedding or whatever isn't. It's actually relatively rare that anything beyond an official church history is written by a member, and a few passing mentions are made in the paper about a new minister, a program the church offers, etc. Nothing that really makes an encyclopedia article. When there are actually real news articles being written about the church, that's a strong sign it's "notable" enough for an article. --W.marsh 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this position. What I look for before putting Churches (or pretty much anything else) up for AfD is two sources that look like they pass WP:RS and are either apparently independent of one another or are about different things. For instance, a newspaper article about the Church history and the inclusion of the Church in a book about Church architecture would be fine if you ask me. Erechtheus 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are clear references affirming notability, I'd say to merge churches to their local community article, per WP:LOCAL. --Elonka 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

These guidelines do seem quite cogent and reasonable. However, perhaps they could be made more concrete, somehow? Erechtheus's 'two sources' threshold is good. However, I would tend to limit things a bit further. For example, a couple of mentions (or even one) in books on architecture/history may definitely warrant inclusion. A 'denomination birthplace' is surely only notable if the denomination itself is notable — in other words, not 'Little Church on the Prairie is where spirit-filled Pastor Joe came up with his Redemptionist Post-Evangelical Reformed Baptist theology'. But if dealing with a modern church where the only claim to notability is size of congregation or presence in a community, then I think a little more than newspaper articles are required, surely? Pretty much every community newspaper will have something on the local church every week, and even large (city-wide) newspapers may have church-related articles that are not truly notable. But what about if the 'newspaper' criterion is extended to nationwide news (in whatever country?). Similarly, size should not be a criterion at all, unless it is verifiably 'the biggest' or 'the smallest' or the 'the tallest' (and even then, I loathe that tendency in modern man to obsess over such things — what about 'the most beautiful' or 'the architecturally most advanced'?).
Edison, why not create a new policy/guideline page (like there are for books, websites, etc.) and put something up there? That way it can start being referred to in AfDs, which in turn will draw more people to the guideline to add their thoughts on the matter. There seems to be enough material, esp. if it has a nice preface and is spaced out with bullet points and things ;-) The Crying Orc 18:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with The Crying Orc. Now that church deletions seem to be a hot topic, I think a policy discussion would be a great idea. I don't want to get into a long discussion here, if we are goign to have a policy page, save to say that I agree with the assertion that size should be irrelevant, except in exceptional cases (being the largest church in a country may confer notability, for example). I'd lean towards national rather than local media coverage being a criterion for notability too. That's all I've got to say, as i do think we need to have a decited page in Wikipedia space to discuss this. church is important to many people, and the tendency to think that "important to me" equals "should be in wikipedia" is widespread. There will alwys be people wishing to add their church to wikipedia, just as there are people who want their school included. Lurker oi! 13:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also worth a look at

WP:ORG, which I stole much of the original content from. And WP:CORP. Also WP:LOCAL Lurker oi! 12:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the best indicator of notability for churches would probably be within WP:LOCAL. It feels more applicable than Corp or Org. Canadian-Bacon t c 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
See also WP:SCHOOLS, no reason why churches should be treated much differently to that.--Docg 18:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The one issue I see with WP:SCHOOLS relating to this is that points 2-4 seem inapplicable, I think we'd need to devise a different structure if we wanted to incorporate elements from it. Canadian-Bacon t c 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It is also relevant that we keep all schools.--Docg 19:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry can you explain that further, I don't quite understand what you mean. Canadian-Bacon t c 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about treating religious organisations differently from how we might treat other local bodies. I'm not arguing for keeping all churches (merge most!), but if we create set of criteria for churches that is much tighter that that for schools, town halls, or other local bodies, we may be creating (or adding to) a systemic anti-religious bias. I've been concerned at the number of people who have been willing to vote to delete a church, simply because it is a church. I've had to fight to keep some patently obviously notable churches, whilst we keep every little school. Perhaps we need to try to develop criteria for local organisations, which would treat schools, churches, golfclubs and town halls in a similar manner. After all, schools are often a problem: they attract juvenile vandalism, defamations of teachers and other pupils. Churches may be written in a POV manner (so clean them up) but other than that, what harm would it do if we ended up with articles on thousands of churches? WP:NOT PAPER.--Docg 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the question here is independant sources. If the church is mentioned in an independant source than yes, it's obviously notable for some reason or another. Otherwise I do agree with you. Canadian-Bacon t c 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hm, perhaps. But if a School had a website, and was, say, listed in a local directory or a education authority page so we could verify its existence, we'd keep it. If a Church has a website, and we can verify its existence from a listing or two, should the same criteria apply? --Docg 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem we risk running into their is with hoax churches. I could easily make a website dedicated to "The Church of The Last Pizza Pocket In The Back Of My Freezer". Though it may be a completely over-the-top example I think it still serves the point. I think the outside listing would be the key component of that. Just for verifiabilities sake and to avoid hoaxes. Canadian-Bacon t c 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

This policy, as with any arbitrary and all-encompassing group of notability criteria, faces huge problems. Consider firstly, that we currently keep every primary school in the universe. That doesn't mean that we should keep every church - but it would indicate that the threshold should be fairly low.

  • "Local churches are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale." Want to try to apply that to schools? Being very influential in a significant community is probably worth a mention.
  • "Size. Many churches claim thousands of attendees." Perhaps in the US, that is true. Not so everywhere. In fact, a church in the UK with even 500 attending is likely to be fairly remarkable (at least in its locality). In Iran, a church with 50 members would probably be worth a mention. In the UK, a church which employed 20 people would be very remarkable, in the US, not so.
  • Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability Why not? Internal documents (like a website) may well be a good source for the type of factual information: e.g. the age of the building, the number of employees, the history of the congregation. Sure, in some instances, with some churches, one may suspect it may be inflated - but generally simple factual claims will be fairly reliable.
  • If we really must have criteria, and I see little point, then you need to consider things like:
    • Age of the building/architectural merits (again this will be subjective - a 17th century European building is not necessarily significant, but if it was North American that alone would be evidence of extreme notability.
    • Significant people who have pastored/attended (past or present) or been buried in the churchyard. If a School gets kept on the basis of an alumni, then the church the Queen, Bush, etc attends is probably worth a mention.
    • Contributions to local community - many churches have been the focal point, or even the founding point of communities.
    • Significant innovations in worship/doctrine/teaching etc. - these may not readily be appreciated by the theological non-specialist
    • more I can't think of.
Also don't assume religious establishments can only be notable for GOOD things they have done. A church, mosque, synagogue, or coven which has done notably evil things should have an article as well. Edison 05:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand the need for this. Churches are easily verifiable, and can be neutrally described. Unlike schools they are not generally targets for vandalism and other libels. WP:NOT paper. Clean up any advertising and go delete pokemon stubs.--Docg 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Clear criteria are absolutely necessary for churches, as no matter how 'inclusive' we are, we have to draw the line somewhere. Having read the guideline thus far, I would say it is good, but needs a bit of 'tightening' — how much media coverage is necessary for it to be 'significant'? What does 'trivial' mean? I'll come back and try to add more specific guidelines when I get the chance. But thanks to Lurker and anyone else who has been involved in getting this guideline up and running. The Crying Orc 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Since churches are not homogeneous, and cultural contexts are varied, clear criteria are absolutely impossible. Some guidelines could be developed - but they'd need to be very flexible, else you'll only import a cultural systemic bias. Do not presume a North American context. (Alternatively, I could suggest that we simply delete all institutions founded recently. Say, since 1492? That, at least, would be clear.)--Docg 17:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think my problem is this: Why do we allow inclusion of virtually every school from the U.S. high school level and above to be included without hesitation, but not churches? I don't think that every one of the 300,000 or so places of worship in the U.S. merits its own article, but certainly larger, historic or newsworthy ones do. I think pretty much any megachurch — now usually classified as 2,000 worshippers per week or more — is notable enough for an article. For smaller churches and places of worship, newsworthiness or historic significance should govern.Realkyhick 06:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Presently, the policy needs a *lot* of work. The idea that size does not indicate notability is problematic. Many things that would make a church notable (such as media coverage, political influence, substantial charitable work) are directly related to size. Size = influence. I get the impression that megachurches are a dime a dozen in the US and Korea. Not so in much of the rest of the world, where a church of 2,000 is considered huge, and the average is more like 100.

The media coverage criterion is very hard to achieve, as “People worship in church on Sunday” is not exactly a compelling headline. Lack of media coverage means not controversial, which is not the same as not notable.

IMO, the following points could indicate notability, where verified by trustworthy sources:
1. Size. Churches that are considerably larger than most others in the region may well be notable. Churches with larger than 2,000 attendance each week (megachurches) are notable. The size needed to be notable will vary according to location (which country, city or rural) and denomination.
2. Media coverage. Churches that have non-trivial multiple media coverage in major newspapers or equivalent are notable.
3. Denomination. The church is considered a notable or “flagship” church within the denomination. This only applies if the denomination is itself notable. This could be documented by sources external to the church, but internal to the denomination.
4. Notable clergy. Leaders of the church have achieved non-trivial media coverage or are notable under WP:BIO.
5. Notable laity. Members of the church are notable under WP:BIO. This only applies where their chief claim to notability is related to their church membership or religious belief.
6. Church activities. The church runs programs that have been noted for their uniqueness or high success rate. This could include youth programs, charitable work, evangelistic programs, music etc.
7. Institutions. The church runs a notable school or college, or has planted multiple daughter churches, or has started or runs some other enduring institution.
8. History. The church or its building is notable for its history, or has contributed to the history of its region.
9. Theology. The theology or teaching of the church is considered unique or controversial for some reason.
Raffles mk 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A few comments. You should also add

10. building - if the building is particularly old (and buildings may be younger or older than their congregations) or has particular architectural importance.

Further, change clergy and laity to 'leaders' and 'worshippers' - that's less denominationally specific.
Under laity, you need to remove 'This only applies where their chief claim to notability is related to their church membership or religious belief.' - that's silly. Queen Elizabeth II is not notable chiefly for her church attendance, yet I suspect the churches she regularly frequents would be notable, if only for that reason. That, of course, will not be true for everyone who meets WP:BIO. Avoid instruction creep. --Docg 23:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The 'building' criterion is a useful one. I think your QEII point is also valid. As is the terminology point, but it is difficult to use non-specific terminology consistently when you are drafting a policy that will cover not only churches but synagogues, mosques, temples etc. For that reason I didn't attempt it. Probably the best way to deal with that would be to specify at the top that the policy applies to all local places of worship, regardless of the terminology used. Raffles mk 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks, don't assume a Christian context either in the text or the discussion. This will apply to mosques, synagogues, monasteries, temples, zagats, and all equivalent local houses of worship for all faiths... The discussion about sizes found in locations has been particularly flagrant at assuming a Christian context. GRBerry 13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical significance

This aspect of notability needs some thought. Just proving that a church has been in existence for 100 years or any arbitrary period years does not make it historically significant. It needs to have influenced history in some way, and if its influence extended beyond the local community it is more notable than if it has just been an ordinary local church. What happened at the church should have had widespread notice outside the local community. It could have been a high degree of notability over a short period or a lesser degree over a longer period. A non-exhaustive list of things which could satisfy the historical provision: Paul Revere's associate hung a lantern in the steeple to signal how the British planned to attack; a group of militants based at the church launched a devastating series of attacks in furtherance of their ideology; the pastor gave a series of sermons which led to changes in national policy; it became a focus of controversy, such as mass murders, burning or bombing by extremists or suppression by the government; the pastor and a few followers barracaded themselves inside to prevent some new denominational policy from being implemented; a new and significant denomination was launched; hymns were written which were adopted in a notable denominations hymnal; notable persons such as national leaders or the head of state were members there; the pastor became nationally known from his books or broadcasts. Multiple independent coverage by reliable sources is needed. Edison 05:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that 100 years of existance does not make a church notable, however I believe there is a number of years that would make a church significant, just based on the fact that it would be a historical landmark. Canadian-Bacon t c 08:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A hundred year old Christian church in China would be extremely notable. Please avoid being culturally specific.--Docg 09:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have missinterpreted that, I'm not listing age as a sole factor, rather a contributing one. If a church has been around for 1000 years, I really don't care where it's from or what culture it is, but I'm willing to hedge my bets on the fact that it's notable as a historical landmark, if for no other reason. Canadian-Bacon t c 09:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I was concerned that people would interpret "historical" to mean "our church has a history" rather than "our church has been noted by independent sources for its special place in history." Everything has a history, but not everything belongs in an encyclopedia. Some churches were touched in one shining moment by history: Lincoln announced some new nation policy from the pulpit, Thomas á Beckett was murdered by the altar, there was a massacre, refugees were sheltered, people were persecuted by those running the church, heretics were burned, 95 theses were nailed to the church door launching the Protestant Reformation, children were sexually molested over a long period, everyone drank the poisoned Koolade. There are many claims to notability other than mere duration, but as noted above, duration can make a church notable if it received widespread independent coverage.
Exactly, that what I'm try to say. Duration is hardly a key reason for notability, but I do think it plays a contributing role. Canadian-Bacon t c 18:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
But my point is, that you can't say that. In certain context, duration alone, would make a religious congregation very very significant/unusual/interesting, even if nothing else of note could be said.--Docg 18:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok, I see what you're getting at. What about something along the lines of "The church is one of the oldest/the oldest of it's type in the region." Canadian-Bacon t c 19:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My rewrite

Here's my rewrite of the notability guidelines. I think this is a step in the right direction, based on people's comments so far. Feel free to add criticism:

[edit] General inclusion in a local article:

  • Most churches and places of religious worship are notable enough for a mention on Wikipedia. In the majority of cases, it is enough to have a brief reference in the article on the area in which the church is located, as per WP:LOCAL. Notable and verifiable facts on the church (which are accurately sourced) may be included to improve the information about the local area.
  • Generally, the church must be of a recognised religion or religious denomination, involving a belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and the acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief. The church's existence should also be verifiable by third-party materials or websites. A "church" that purportedly does not follow these criteria may not conform to established Wikipedia policy such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day or Wikipedia:Spam, and generally should not be included on Wikipedia, whether in a local article or its own article.

[edit] For a church to have its own article:

  • Some articles on churches may be written in order to solely promote a church. Editors intending to write church articles for this purpose, while they may be acting in good faith and with good motives, should be aware that according to official Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements. Advertising will either be cleaned up to adhere to a neutral point of view or deleted. In the latter case, it is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
  • The key for a church to have its own article is that the article must establish notability of the church in some way. This is done by including verifiable and reliable sources on the church.
  • Whilst the number of articles on individual churches will be small, editors should also remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and it should represent a worldwide view. These guidelines should be construed freely enough to allow, ideally, any major city to have a few individual church articles on notable churches.
  • Individual congregations of notable churches should generally not have their own articles, but should be included as part of a church's main article.

[edit] Guidelines

Local churches should usually be considered to be notable if they meet one or more of the following criteria:

  1. The church has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself.
    • This can include:
      • Inclusion in third party published materials.
      • Media coverage that is non-trivial and deals specifically with the church as the primary subject of the article.
    • This should not include:
      • Internal documents, including reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines, newspapers and the like published or produced by the church itself, unless those works are notable in themselves (although such may be used as source material within the article itself). Materials not published by the local church itself, but by the denomination, organisation or body of which the church is a part, which establish notability in the same way that a third-party source would in discussing something of relevance to more than the local church community, should be, however, considered as a verifiable source on a case by case basis.
      • A listing of churches and services in local newspapers or community information websites.
      • Other works which would not meet Wikipedia's reliable source standards.
  2. The church plays a significant role in, or has contributed significantly to, the life and affairs of a country or state, and/or its government or ruler(s). This should not be dependent on a country or state having an established church.1
  3. The church plays a significant role in, or has contributed significantly to, its city (in the case of a metropolitan or suburban church), or its regional area (in the case of a rural church).2
  4. The church plays a notable or significant role within its denomination or religion. This only should apply if the denomination is notable in itself, being documented by sources external to the individual church, but internal to the denomination.
  5. The church is notably large for its region, and has achieved notability in non-trivial sources for this.3
  6. The church has, or has had, notable leaders or clergy, for whom the particular church has had a formative impact. For a church to fit into this category, the leader should be notable enough to meet WP:BIO, by non-trivial external coverage, and should have their own article. The involvement of the church in the person's life must not be trivial.4
  7. The church has, or has had, notable members or worshippers, for whom the particular church was formative in their work or their life. These people must also be notable under WP:BIO and should ideally have their own article, and their involvement in the church. The church's involvement in their lives should not be trivial.
  8. The church runs, or has run, a program, or programs, which are notable for their uniqueness, high success rate or high popularity. Such programs may include youth programs, charitable work, evangelistic programs, and music.
  9. The church runs or has run a notable school or college, has established some other notable churches, or runs or has run another notable enduring institution.
  10. The church's teachings or theology is considered unique or notably controversial. The teachings should be of the individual church, not its denomination.
  11. The church building has particular architectural and/or historic significance.

[edit] Notes

Note 1: The Washington National Cathedral and Westminster Abbey would be examples of churches fitting this criteria.
Note 2: Most cities' main cathedrals of recognised denominations, for example, would fit in this category; churches such as Paradise Community Church in Adelaide, Australia, (from which the Family First Party, a notable political party in Australia with representation in its state Parliament and the Federal Parliament, evolved) would also fit into this category.
Note 3: The size needed to be notable will be dependent on the area, and discretion should be used in discussions regarding the country and area where the church is situated. Generally, most megachurches should be notable.
Note 4: All Souls Church, Langham Place would be an example of this, being formative in the ministry of notable theologian John Stott.

JROBBO 12:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. Change 'a mention' to 'mentioning' (better grammatically)
  2. Insisting on verifiability is good (but we do that for all information!) but don't try to define what the church must believe in. It really is better if Wikipedia policies don't do theology. The whole of the point beginning 'Generally' is either unnecessary or confused.
  3. Your point about promotion is wrong. If an article is promotional and not neutral, but the subject merits an article, then we do not delete it. We clean it up. Deletion is only for subjects that don't merit articles, and even then, merging and redirected should be the normal course of action. Very few church articles need outright deletion (merging is a lot quicker anyway).
  4. Don't confuse reliable sources with notability. Something can have very good sources and still not merit its own article. Sourcing is not the 'key' to establishing notability.
  5. "Individual congregations of notable churches should generally not have their own articles, but should be included as part of a church's main article." This is incomprehensible. Do you mean denomination when you say 'church'?
  6. If WP:NOT paper, why should the number of church articles be small? Why should every verifiable church not have its own article?? Answers on a postcard please.
  7. The thing on 'internal documents' is incomprehensible - and clearly 'instruction creep' - let's us common sense.
  8. A significant role in a local community is also important as with schools and town halls.
  9. Denominational sources will be the best evidence that a congregation is notable within the denomination. Excluding them is crazy.
  10. If we fix all of these to cover every case and culture, it will run to pages of ifs and buts, and will be so subjective that we'll end up having to take each case on its merits, just as we do now. In short, this is a waste of time. Just de-pov church articles, and if there is not much verifiable, neutral info left, then merge them to the article on the locality, or denomination. We'd be better with a whole load of composite articles on Presbyterian Churches in Pittsburgh than all this verbosity. --Docg 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
More Comments:
  1. JROBBO's rewrite is very much a step in the right direction. Clearly we are getting somewhere.
  2. Let's not worry about allowing a lot of church articles. Wikipedia now has 1.5 million + articles, and probably eats 10,000 each day for breakfast. If they are notable, they can all have articles.
  3. The 'General inclusion in a local article' is too verbose. It is enough to simply say "Articles for churches that are not notable enough for their own article should generally be merged as per WP:LOCAL rather than deleted".
  4. I agree with Doc about sources internal to the denomination - they ought to be recognised as valid. Apart from that, the "Guidelines" section can be used as is.
Raffles mk 19:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I really think we should make this a part of WP:LOCAL or maybe WP:ORG; otherwise, we'd be getting an overdose of overly-specific guidelines. (Radiant) 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup. And I suspect that will also help counter the suspicion of either a pro or anti religious bias.--Docg 10:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
While that is not unreasonable, at the moment we have church articles beings deleted despite being obviously notable. WP:ORG is too vague, and WP:LOCAL is not to establish notability. I think a specific guideline is needed for this reason. Raffles mk 18:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd frame a guideline like this: "remove POV, keep verifiable information, if that leaves not much info - merge it somewhere, if it is longer leave the article." There ends the story - and we avoid subjective ideas of 'notability'. --Docg 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
We should NOT merge this— this sort of thing has been needed for a long time; while notability guidelines on individual types of shops, for example, would be ridiculous, churches, schools and shopping centres seem to be the community things that are always targeted for deletion, or are at least controversial. Anything else should fit under WP:ORG, but this should have its own guidelines. JROBBO 02:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I think that a clear distinction needs to be made between church buildings and congregations. Church buildings can be notable for the same reasons that any other building is: a historical event took place there, it is cloesly associated with a notable person, it is architecturally significant, or sheer age. (I, for one, think that ANY building anywhere in the world more than 1000 years old is notable, in North America the age for automatic notability drops to about 200 years.) Please note that a building can be notable, even if the congregation currently meeting in it is not.

A congregation can be notable for many factors, including notable worshipers or clergy (past or present), association with historical events, includng those of a religious nature, lareg size, or age. Given that we keep every school, and are very liberal in what other organizations we keep, to make the bar higher for churches (which the original form of this proposal does), is to insert a very severe sytemic anti-religious POV into wikipedia. Dsmdgold 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Recognized"

Saying a church has to be a recognized denomination smacks of established state churches in Europe, the Orthodox Jewish denominatoin in Israel, Islamic faith in Moslem countries, or the State Church in China. If there is a rogue congregation of Pentecostal or Roman Catholic Christians in China who carry on their worship illegally, and there are reliable sources writing about them, they could deserve articles. If the First Church of Satan or the Wicca Coven opens in a storefront in Birmingham Alabama and the Sheriff arrests the leaders for being contrary to the community norms, it might deserve an article if it receives reliable independent coverage. But if 3 college students start the Church of the Friday Night Giant Bong in their apartment and it gets an article in the campus paper, does it get an article or does it fail the "belief in a supreme entity" requirement? I would delete the latter for lack of multiple independent sources. I would hesitate to delete a church article based on "complete bollocks." In the yellow pages of my town I see several "Independent Bible Churches" and "Independent Community Churches" which might profess no connection to a larger denomination. I suppose we would fall back on the "verifiable but still not notable" reason for deleting an article they created if they could not produce multiple independent sources. On the other hand, is a group of athiests got together every week to profess their philosophy and called themselves a congregation and received widespread attention and mutiple reliable and independent sources, they might make the cut. Edison 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I tried to make clear that "recognised" did not equate to an established church. I think quite a few independent churches would be notable under what we have as guidelines at the moment, but I don't know how to phrase it. JROBBO 02:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Places of local interest

Feedback is requested on this (proposed) guideline about articles on "local" places, such as churches, historic buildings, malls, masts, neighbourhoods, parks, schools, stations, and streets. Please respond to its talk page rather than here. Thank you. (Radiant) 16:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for local churches

I would like to add to criterium 3 : historical, architectural or artistic significance. JoJan 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/t/Wikipedia_talk%7ENotability_%28local_churches_and_other_religious_congregations%29_4f75.html"