Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossway Baptist 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 was Delete. Oh no, I spent a great deal of time talking about this AfD closure. For some reason, it didn't get saved. Now I have to wrack my brain and try to type it again...

I know that this AfD closure will likely be disputed, so I'd better write something that I will copy and paste to a DRV, if it happens. In a nutshell, the consensus is that this article fails to assert notability.

There were a few Keep !votes:

• One says all non-notable churches belong on Wikipedia.
• Two say that this is one of the largest and most well-known churches in Melbourne. Later on, this was sourced, but only with a number of people attending the church. There were no credible sources/references saying that this is one of the largest or most well-known churches in Melbourne.
• One says that there is a source attesting to its size, but that is minimal
• One that basically says the article needs to be cleaned up because it fails to assert notability.

I believe that these arguments to keep are insufficient to outweigh or address the concerns mentioned by the delete arguments, which is why I'm closing this as Delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossway Baptist Church

Non-notable church. Article is being used as a precedent. Richfife 16:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. ~ lav-chan @ 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Even non-notable churches have their place at Wikipedia. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not according to the (very much established) status quo. I think a pretty good rule of thumb is, if you're the only person on Wikipedia who knows or cares enough about a subject to edit its article, it doesn't belong here. ~ lav-chan @ 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm of the opinion that individual churches or parishes are generally not notable, unless the church has been subject to media coverage or the building itself is notable. -- Merope ^Talk 17:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you misunderstand what a church is about. The church is the people, not the building. What we need is a set of criteria written that establishes the notability of a church. (JROBBO 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

• Agreed. What's the procedure to establish such a criteria? And is it possible to hold off on deleting any of the 3 articles that are up for discussion until something is established? - Jasonb 04:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We could try something at Category:Wikipedia_proposals under a notability proposal - I think some things have to be established rather than every church article simply deleted. While I don't think every church is worthy of inclusion I feel that there are some notable churches that should have articles but have had them deleted. I feel there should be a hold on all church deletions until something is established on their notability. (JROBBO 04:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

• Delete nn parish; parishcruft, would set a bad precedent to keep. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What is "parishcruft"? (JROBBO 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

See Cruft#Popular_culture. The usage of the parish prefix above I'm assuming is Carlossuarez46's way of saying it relates to a church. -- Longhair\^talk 03:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem although with the word cruft is that it is in the opinion of some just a way of getting about the WP:CIVIL policy when talking about ones personal opinions. Cruft for one is anothers valuable jewels. Why should personal opinions of a few editors in a tiny secluded discussions contribute to the overall scheme of things. Ansell 07:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNo verifiable claim of notability. Notable churches could have articles, but not every church. Notablilty does not equal mere size.Edison 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 02:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- non-notable church. -- Longhair\^talk 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC) I withdrew my comments. -- Longhair\^talk 10:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable individual Church location. Erechtheus 03:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable church. --Roisterer 05:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 05:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of Melbourne's largest and most well-known churches. I'll try and source this. Hopefully I'll find something online. Raffles mk 07:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Done. Also note that a google search for "Crossway Baptist" yields over 2000 results, while "Beaumaris Baptist" (an average sized baptist church in Melbourne) yields only 39. Raffles mk 07:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I think Raffles mk's research has made this article notable, which is the best outcome for all. A Baptist Church in Australia with 2300 people is quite big - that should make it one of the biggest in Australia - and should make it notable. To be mentioned in the Bulletin as a mainstream media source on the rise of the churchgoing population makes it notable too. (JROBBO 10:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

Comment: External references are a wonderful thing hey? I'm going to edit my input to the effect of being neutral. -- Longhair\^talk 10:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - One of the references does describe this as a notable church (although I prefer references to be listed as "References" rather than "External Links"). George J. Bendo 10:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. >Radiant< 13:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see how this church is notable. Lankiveil 05:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC).
• Addendum still delete The new references only mention the church as asides, not as the focus of the article. The sole claim to notable I've seen so far is size (about 3000 on Sunday). (For the record, I find that kind of creepy.) Does that make it notable? I can see arguments either way. - Richfife 18:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I think that size makes it notable because it means it is the largest Baptist Church in Australia. The article should probably be expanded (by someone more familiar with them, I know of them from being in a Baptist Church on the other side of the country) to include information on that status as one of the "flagship" churches and also about the stuff they do with their influence as one of the larger churches, such as their conferences to build into other church leadership. -Jasonb 13:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, If the largest church in one of the largest denominations in Australia is not notable, then what churches are notable? More members means more money, more influence with politicians, more media coverage, more charitable works etc. By Australian standards, 3300 members is extraordinarally successful. Raffles mk 06:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Eusebeus 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I suspect that the church is indeed notable, based on the discussion above. Unfortunately, the article and external links/references to date don't yet make it clear. I think we should have an article on the subject, so I can't say deletion is the right option. But the article also doesn't meet my standards for a keep opinion. If anyone wants to work more on this, request userification, and bring it back when the article meets the standards at WP:INDY. GRBerry 03:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why can't the article be kept and then fixed if there is a minimal case for notability? (JROBBO 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC))
• Weak Keep there is now sourcing attesting to its size, but it is minimal. I would be far more comfortable if a broader case for notability could be made. - Tewfik^Talk 16:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely that means though that there IS now a case for keeping this article? Perhaps Raffles mk can do some more work on it and integrate the article, get more references, etc. (JROBBO 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC))
• Weak keep But it needs to be re-written, to bring the media references into it, as they make it notable, or at least somewhat more notable than your average church. --Michael Johnson 01:32, 11 October 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.