Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley View Christian Church, Dallas, Texas

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 no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 16:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Valley View Christian Church, Dallas, Texas

To me, this looks like just another evangelical church. No assertion has been made that it or its pastor is prominent in any church movement. The church's website states that it can accomodate 1500 people for worship, which is not unusual, considering that the congregation is in suburban Dallas. Pilatus 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not a unique name either, google has 21,000+ hits on "Valley View Christian Church", all over the country. Probably got listed due to association with Harriet Miers CarbonCopy 20:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep passes the verifiability test. It's very notable in the local community. (btw, I moved it to avoid any future name ambiguity as raised by CarbonCopy...)SchmuckyTheCat 21:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Move left some broken linkage between article and AfD, tried to clean it up as best I could. Hope I didn't break anything else. CarbonCopy 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NOT.Gateman1997 23:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How so? That's a pretty overarching document. SchmuckyTheCat 23:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It fails point 1.7 of WP:NOT in my opinion. It also lacks verfied outside sources. Gateman1997 23:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is not a FAQ, not a list, not a travel guide, not a memorial, not a news report, not genealogical, not directory/phonebook entry, not promotional, and not an instruction manual. The lack of sources is a call for expansion and verification, not deletion.

I have added a reference from Slate for verification. Any media search on the name of the church plus "Miers" will provide significant details to expand the article and verify sources. SchmuckyTheCat 00:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It still smacks of a phone book entry and being granted an article by a tenuous at best connection to Miers. My vote stands.Gateman1997 01:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting is evil, you have however, articulated a position. Thanks for doing so. SchmuckyTheCat 01:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems to be just one of thousands of average churches and Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. No incoming links from other articles says a lot about no one expecting to find an article for a run of the mill church here. 24.17.48.241 02:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it looks like this church is above average to me Yuckfoo 21:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article fails to establish why it is encylopedic. As above, it seems to fail 1.7 of WP:NOT. Vegaswikian 06:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- JJay 05:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.  Grue  15:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn church --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:19, Dec. 14, 2005

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.