Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GateWay 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 09:16Z

[edit] GateWay Church

GateWay Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article does not establish church's notability ObtuseAngle 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete no assertion of any importance, most likely text was ripped from the website. Yanksox 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete POV unsourced article fails WP:N and proposed WP:CONG.Edison 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Rejected WP:CONG. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    The rejected status is disputed, and besides, the fact that it is rejected doesn't mean it can't be of help. JROBBO 09:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Typically, if a guideline has so little support that it can't even be clearly established if it's proposed or rejected, it's rejected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion perfectly illustrates the folly of keeping the rejected guidelines: (a) they remain contentious, and (b) they continue to be quoted. Regardless this was never a guideline only a proposal which never should have been cited at AfD as having weight. --Kevin Murray 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Past practice has been to cite proposed guidelines in AFDs, labelling them as such. That was the way WP:PORNBIO 's authors got it accepted as a guideline for notability. It is not established by a vote at the discussion page. Edison 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I still maintain that it's helpful in deciding what is or isn't helpful (like a WP essay). JROBBO 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Would speedy be as effective in preventing re-creation? This was redirected before and then brought back. --Kevin Murray 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If something is speedied, and then the exact same thing is recreated, it can just be re-speedied under G4 (it was already determined that the old article was unacceptable). Of course, if something different is created, that would need to be evaluated on its own merits, but if the new article really is acceptable where the old one was not, that's not necessarily bad. If someone's really bent on recreating something, they're just going to keep it up until they get blocked or the page gets a dose of salt. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This does not appear to be a congregation of a widely recognized denomination; from what I can tell from the article it is a small independent denomination although local in membership. As such it is subject to the rules of WP:ORG, which, at this time, specifically excludes congregations but includes denominations, without regard to size or geography. --Kevin Murray 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I see no reference to congregations in WP:ORG except where it says For proposed guidelines on local churches and schools see: Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) and Wikipedia:Schools.

So reference to WP:cong is still perfectly appropriate. If WP:ORG were amended to exclude all articles about congregations, that would run contrary to the observed practice in AFDs and would be inappropriate and misleading, since many article about congregations have been kept. Edison 23:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

      • "Rejected" doesn't mean "totally meritless", it just means "didn't achieve consensus". If an individual editor still happens to agree with the ideas expressed in a rejected guideline, I see nothing wrong with a shorthand reference to that rather than a long posting of them in every debate they apply to. The closing admin is the one responsible to weight arguments accordingly. There's no prohibition against referring to something just because it's not a guideline or policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Edison, please slow down and read what I wrote "This does not appear to be a congregation." I see this as a small geographic "denomination"; these are specifically included in WP:ORG. --Kevin Murray 15:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak DeleteTechnically this should be tagged for NPOV and having no sources, and get a POV haircut. However, the assertion to notablility is weak, and I suspect some copyright violations as well; if not the latter then potentially POV and/or original research. Has anybody contacted the writters informing them of the AfD and explaining or policies on sources? --Kevin Murray 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Page's sole author has been contacted, no reply. ObtuseAngle 19:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I agree with Kevin M.--this might conceivably be a denomination--but I cannot tell, as there are no sources at all. The doctrines as stated look reasonably standard. Is an unaffiliated congregation with beliefs and practices the same as some other denomination(s) to be considered as a denomination of its own? I do not know, & I don't want to do the OR.DGG 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say 'no.' The notability of a denomination is based on the fact that denominations include multiple local congregations and have some sort of regional or national scope. Some individual non-denominational congregations have notability, like Saddleback Church and Willow Creek Community Church. This does not appear to be such a church. Googling 'GateWay Church Reminderville Ohio' returns this Wikipedia article as the first hit, along with a map to a completely different Gateway Church in Chagrin Falls. It doesn't appear the church which is the subject of this article has a website of its own. ObtuseAngle 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
A trip to the dictinoary puts me in agreement with Obtuse: "a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination." Regardless this is an "organization" (possibly sect) and fits no case for special inclusion thus defaulting to WP:N, which it fails. --Kevin Murray 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Edison. *drew 09:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, advertisment, religiocruft. --Candy-Panda 09:14, 5 March 2007 (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.