Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayside Community Church

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 trainwreck. It is clear that no consensus will come of this; please nominate articles seperately, where appropriate, so that they may be considered on their own merits. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayside Community Church

Bayside Community Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete Non-notable church per WP:CHURCH --Адам Райли Talk 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following churches which I feel qualify just the same. --Адам Райли Talk 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I change my vote on St Mary's Cathedral Basilica to keep, as it has shown work and appears to be notable. --Адам Райли Talk 14:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to state that I am in no way doing this to make a point, or on an agenda, and that these are all in good faith. Yes, I did nominate one article for deletion by mistake. However, I changed my position to speedy keep. I got the list of these churches from Church stubs, not googling anything that says Church in it. This is purely in good faith. --Адам Райли Talk 10:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete only Undisputed Pastordavid 06:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Keep All nomination appears to be a WP:Point about churches, and the mass nomination is certainly inappropriate. Nominations in the past couple of days as a part of this have included Willow Creek Community Church and Saddleback Church. Pastordavid 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • Calvery Lutheran (Willmar, MN) would be worth keeping if it was the first congregation of the Norwegian - Danish Evangelical Lutheran Church, it is certainly one of the first. I would keep this up and give someone a chance to check on that.
    • Evangelical Catholic Church is a denomination (see List of Lutheran denominations, not a local congregation, if that matters.
    • Faith! Christian appears notable as it is pastored by the national Vice-President of the Assemblies of God in Australia and is the parent organization of a college.
    • St Mary's Basilica seems notable, because of its history and current function.
    • St John's Cathedral (Edmunton) seems notable to me, because of the previous bishop, its role as a major cathedra church.

Pastordavid 06:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete uncontended, treat all as WP:PROD (i.e. undelete and if necessary AfD on request), to avoid trainwreck, as noted above. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all undisputed as non-notable. Doc Tropics 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as failing guideline. Renom individually any contested.--cj | talk 16:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per suggested route above. Eusebeus 16:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete only clearly non-notable churches, keep all others. For example, also Faithful Central Bible Church seems to be notable as it was involved in a trade-union protest action - http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/Forum_IA33_Solidarity_D2 (should be mentioned in the article, I think), it was mentioned in LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-endtimes22jun22,0,5277604,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california) etc. I suspect that the nominator just googles Wikipedia for articles with "church" in the title and nominates them for deletion without studying them case by case.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Keep all per Agent 86 - probably bad faith nomination.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable -- Selmo (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ouch, we went through this with a bunch of historic synagogues a while ago, and those weren't even this many. Mass-nominating is a really bad idea in most cases. Some of these articles aren't really worth the trouble, but the subjects may well be notable and should emphatically not be knee-jerkishly re-deleted if they are deleted now and a better version recreated later. I am inclined to keep all cathedrals and any churches with a couple of centuries of history or more, as well as anything that stands out architecturally.
OK, there may well be others. Again, I really dislike mass-nominations like this, as there won't be time to research and rewrite anything that might look like it is worth saving. U◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

KEEP--is someone taking aim at Churches; the ones I'm connected with are historic congregations, that, I'M SORRY, I haven't had the time to expand from Stub status... MERRY Christmas, and BAH-HUMBUG to the one who submitted the Afd.... Bacl-presby 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep All and relist as separate AfDs. To respond to Bacl-presby, the nominator has spent the last few days nominating churches for deletion (even to the point of nominating articles that simply have "church" in the title). I don't think it's gone so far to prove a point, but there certainly seems to be an agenda. While many of the nominated churches have been non-encyclopedic, quite a few (both those from the past few days and in today's list) are and should not be deleted. Agent 86 20:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I gotta say, I have no problem with an "agenda" per se. If a user wants to go on a mini-crusade and nominate a cart-load of churches, or cellular antennae, or malls, or college a cappella groups, more power too s/him. I do, however, agree that this list is a bit hard to digest and individual AfDs might have been more effective.--Dmz5 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All and relist individually, as per Agent 86. The range of the nominator's recent entries is too broad to accept a block nomination like this one. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All for now and relist individually, per discussion above: this way is just too confusing, and will likely give the closing admin a headache. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • I can't do blanket delete, there are notable entries in there. Keep All, and relist individually. --Dennisthe2 00:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ALL Too many dissimilar churches lumped together in one nomination. Please withdraw the nomination and nominate separately so each can be judged on its own merits. Some are non-notable. But some are megachurches, or the largest in the state, one is St Mary's Cathedral Basilica a cathedral dating back to 1112 AD in India. Keep all listed by U◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d. One "church" appears to be a denomination. Give me a break, per WP:CHURCH and common sense, with lumping them all together. These are not fungible TV masts. Edison 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ALL Since there is at least one that appears to be extremely notable, St Mary's Cathedral Basilica, I cant' be sure the nominator actually read all the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist individually. Tragic romance 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all -listing numerous churches with AfDs then not even allowing discussion per nomination is totally inappropriate. Kukini 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I concur, mass nominations are a bad idea. It's possible the equivalent of St. Peter's Basilica is in there and I wouldn't know it without careful scanning. Mister.Manticore 17:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all and renominate individually with rationales for each. The nominator appears to have missed Charlotte Church, however. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and redo nominations individually. This nomination has been unwantedly fouled up by mass-nomination. Furthermore, all church buildings are individually notable, as are all major religious buildings. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:WINP/ Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, they are about real places. --Qyd 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and relist individually those which appear to be non-notable.--Tdl1060 20:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. This mass nomination seems to have been in bad faith as many of the articles are clearly notable. --- RockMFR 21:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. This is nothing more than a communist insurrection on Wikipedia. On his user page you can see that he is a Russian atheist. It is clear from the mass-nomination that he just wants to wipe Christianity off from the face of Wikipedia, if not history and the world. Well, we are not going to stand it so welcome to Democracy. This is clearly an interesting church for its unique style. This blatant attempt to purge Christianity from Wikipedia is really getting out of hand and is becoming censureship, but we will be heard. I am the primary author of the New Testament Baptist Church article that has come under attack recently and was refered here from its Afd. Help stop the madness and vote to keep churchs on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Baptist Church also.--JEF 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
JEF, please restrain from personal attacks and ad hominem arguments of this type. It does not matter who he is, the important thing is whether the articles keep the notability guidelines and whether this nomination was a good faith one in the sense that the nominator thoroughly checked all the nominated articles against the guidelines. User pages with religious and political statements are annoying and often offensive, but they cannot be used as arguments in AfD.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. I agree with JEF; he just wants the churches off Wikipedia. It's plainly obvious he's an atheist; he created the Wikiproject for atheists! Besides that, originally, the Burnt Church First Nation was nominated; it's obvious he just googled anything with 'church' in it. BloodLinedBandLead 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the following:
    1. Bayside Community Church is a conference church, rather than one with a recurring pastor. This is a weak claim to notability all on its own. It also makes it harder to evaluate whether the notable preachers constitute an additional claim to notability. At the very least it needs its own discussion.
    2. Evangelical Catholic Church as it is a denomination, and has had a prior AFD with no consensus so it clearly needs individual consideration. We usually keep denominations, and no reason is provided for removing this denomination.
    3. Evangelical Church of the Deaf is for the Deaf, which makes it quite different from the typical church, much more likely to be notable and should be considered separately.
    4. Saint-Joseph, Le Havre has an independent citation in the article, so it needs individualized attention.
    5. St Mary's Cathedral Basilica is 894 years old, and it is a Basilica. It is notable.
    6. St. John's Cathedral, Edmonton is a bishop's throne, it is almost definitely notable, and certainly needs individual attention.
    I also think the closing admin should seriously consider declaring a trainwreck, as I don't believe the nominator actually read all the articles that he nominated, much less thought about whether the issues were the same for all of them. I certainly don't have the time to research them all, so offer no opinion on any others. GRBerry 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bayside Community Church and No Vote on the other ones. They should have individual afds if someone thinks they should be deleted, i'll be neutral towards them until then.Just H 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all, especially on the grounds that mass-nominations don't allow a coherent assessment of individual cases. Some articles nominated are admittedly not notable as they currently stand, but many seem capable of being expanded to become valid entries - the list seems a random, incoherent selection. Create an AfD for separate articles if necessary, after further time to allow expansion of content and further assessment. 'Keep all' at this stage. Carbonix 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all, purely on the basis that there are far far too many nominated here to have an accountable AfD process - 64 articles all getting tarred in the same brush stroke is not good - about the only way that would be acceptable is if they were all from the same originating author as part of a spamming - but these are all by different authors, some cathedrals not churches, some are total junk but some are historically important buildings deserving of articles and some of them have existed for a couple of weeks but some have an article history going back a year and a half or more. We can't just scatter gun and take out 64 articles because a few are spammy. In the case of the article that brought me here it is far more deserving to be merged into its town article than deleted. I very strongly suggest this Afd is withdrawn and the 64 looked at more closely, relisting in sensible numbers where accountability can be given to the process not just "delete them all" and doing damage to this encyclopaedia. SFC9394 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep all of these please many are notable and mass nominations like this are disruptive and unhelpful really Yuckfoo 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all due to mass nomination; also vote to keep Our Savior's Lutheran Church (Burbank, Illinois) - with 2207 members, it appears to be the fifth largest congregation in the ELCA's Metropolitan Chicago Synod, and the second largest in Cook County. The article's a measly stub, but that shouldn't be the main criteria. MisfitToys 02:53, 21 December 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Bayside_Community_Church_1f1c.html"