Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoreline Christian Center

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 - consensus and relevancy of sources. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoreline Christian Center

Shoreline Christian Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No notability asserted for this obscure Christian Center in Texas (although it assures us that "The growth of the church is growing rapidly".) wikipediatrix 03:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - it has 6000 members, making it as notable as any of the high schools on Wikipedia. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It claims to have 6000 members. Big difference. (My family church still "claims" me as a member even though I literally have not attended since I was eight or nine. With many churches, simply being on their mailing list makes you a "member".) wikipediatrix 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are also churches, however, which go the other way around, with many attendees not being members. And if it makes the claim, we probably should go with "innocent until proven guilty" and not assume they're lying, but check it out. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't give unsourced claims the benefit of the doubt, especially in an article written with such POV. wikipediatrix 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The size of the church (unless backed up with sources demonstrating that this is somehow an unusual number) isn't a claim to notability vis a vis schools anyway. What makes a school notable - when it is - is a different set of criteria. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - in view of this: [1], an independent, and non-local source. I they have seating of 5000, high on the source's list (and likely more than 1 service), that qualifies as a mega-church, and a keep. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should being a megachurch qualify as a keep? There are a lot of megachurches, do all of them deserve an article? Lurker ^oi! 11:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising tone, bare assertion of notability which is not near enough to pass WP:ORG. Source provided by Patstuart is about a sound system, coverage of the church is limited to "This sound system, that we're talking about, happens to be in this building", which is a trivial mention. Seraphimblade 04:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the source that Patstuart cites simply proves that the church exists. The fact that it exists doesn't make it notable, and neither I think does the fact that it's a megachurch - since there are lots of these. If it was shown to be the first, oldest, biggest or something else-ist Megachurch, then we'd be in business. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as shameless 'vanispamcruftisement'. Badly written to boot: 'Shoreline Christian Center has nursery, children, youth place where they can get closer to their relationship with God.' — which is not only not English, but barely conforms with NPOV etc. Just make it go — could this not have been speedied? The Crying Orc 08:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Enormous church is clearly notable, see this article. The article does need a rewrite, though Raffles mk 10:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's a non-trivial thing, the article seems to be more about the general culture of the American South, rather than that specific church. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Agreed, this article seems to simply mention that the writer stopped at the church, it provides little information beyond that. Seraphimblade 11:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. a lot of churches are this size, something more is needed (such as influence outside the congregation) to show notability. Lurker ^oi! 11:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete makes no credible claim to being encyclopaedic, and the English is terrible. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• KeepNotable youth program per article in Time magazine I added to the article, as well as the Austin Times article previously cited. I left out a People magazine which was just a passing mention. Editors please note that you may edit the article if you find the phrasing is objectionable, and editing is preferred to deletion in such cases. Edison 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I fixed it up a bit, though not a lot. But now if anybody has a problem, hopefully it won't be with the content. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The new source isn't much better than the one about the American South. The only mention of this particular church is that there are 160 teenagers who attend, where previously there had been 80 (and the fact that the church didn't buy a pool table). It still seems pretty trivial to me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete simply nn. Eusebeus 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, big churches are neither rare nor unusual, no evidence of notability, no non-trivial press coverage or other reliable sources provided, leading to serious verifiability issues. Xtifr _tälk 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - illiterate, NN drivel. Pete Fenelon 01:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've started a page on notability guidelines for local churches. You can join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) Lurker ^oi! 11:58, 25 November 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.