Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austral-Asian Community Church

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 Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austral-Asian Community Church

This was originally prodded by User:AYArktos on the grounds of questioning how this church stood out from others. User:Cynical then removed, on the grounds "churches are notable". I disagree that a religious centre is inherently important so here it is. I am unconvinced that the fact that this church was formed by a minority group adds any more notability to the fact that it is a church.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete wikipedia is not the yellow pages Where ^(talk) 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom - notability not established. Schools, for an example of a comparable institution, are merged into their locality article as a separate section, where notability not established and limited information provided. --A Y Arktos\^talk 02:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete Williamb 03:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual churches may be notable, but most of them are not in fact notable. Most of the churches which have come up on AfD have been deleted. --Metropolitan90 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 05:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A search of an Australia-New Zealand newspaper database came up with nothing so absence of verifiable material. Capitalistroadster 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Much as I love church exposure anywhere it can be gotten, there's no verifiable information of the church doing anything beyond the standard church business. It's interesting but doesn't meet even the weakest standards of notability. Captainktainer 16:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. Tijuana Brass 07:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, pending citation of sources. I know I'm going against the trend here, but I feel that churches are by their nature notable. We have articles for every small town and CDP in the United States, so I don't see any harm in including an article on each church. On the other hand, whatever information is included must be verifiable, and if it is impossible to do that for this church then it will be impossible for Wikipedia to have an article on this church. NoIdeaNick 09:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn  Funky Monkey  (talk)  18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per NoIdeaNick. Never did understand why schools were inherently notable but churches weren't, Wiki isn't paper, so have 'em all I say (pending verification) Jcuk 21:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable. - Longhair 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can edit the article to verify some sort of notability. Otherwise I really don't see how it is encyclopedic in any way. Wstaffor 22:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep as above. It is verifiable, and represents a real part of a community. The fact that it is not in America should not be used to delete it. For great justice. 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User:AYArktos and myself are both from Australia. AYArktos has been around a long time, has a barnstart of national merit and is an admin, and I have also written many new articles on Australian content - We are not prejudiced against Australian material, but we do nominate things if they are not particularly notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 00:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. One reason it's so hard to find with Google is that this is actually called the "Austral-Asian Christian Church". If it is kept, the article should really provide more context. Australia, OK, but where in Australia? I'm getting a flashback of a ring found in the parking lot. I understand it is in Adelaide, but I see also a reference to Canberra, Perth and Darwin. Is this a Church in the sense of the Church of England (an institution), or in the sense of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (a building)? Based on 1266.0 - Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups (ASCRG), 1996 I'd think the former, but from their web site I'd guess the latter. What gives? Lambiam^Talk 01:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - totally as NoIdeaNick. Luka Jačov 08:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep multilingual aspect, also cultural diversity are notable. Paul foord 05:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely non-notable. --Roisterer 14:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as per NoIdeaNick. What is with people just saying "non-notable" and never giving reasons? WP has lots of room for articles on obscure topics. People simply stating "completely non-notable" and the like should back themselves up if they are asking for deletion of articles. And I don't like overseas people simply voting for deletion because the article in question comes from another country. (JROBBO 01:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC))
• Delete one of millions of non-notable churches worldwide, most of which thankfully don't self-promote here. Harro5 07:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --serbiana - talk 20:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per NoIdeaNick. --estavisti 13:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep PANONIAN (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the anti-non-notability squadron is back. --GTubio 19:20, 23 April 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.