Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings Christian 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 Keep -- Kings article Delete Shire and Liverpool articles. as note below This afd had addressed the issues raise solely for Kings Christian Church, while only delete discussion has taken place on the Shire Christian Centre and the Liverpool Christian Centre

[edit] Kings Christian Church

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

Non-notable Assemblies of God church. The article makes no real assertion of notability and no independent reliable sources Mattinbgn/ talk 21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above

Shire Christian Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Liverpool Christian Life Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- Mattinbgn/ talk 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Delete both per nom --Javit 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, per above Rackabello 21:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above - WP:N in particular. Orderinchaos 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have referenced main article. The main church was the subject of Steve Irwin rumours about his purported conversion to christianity. Assize 23:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
    • Now has multiple secondary references, plus one major reference from a major Australian newspapers that talks about the church. Still a keep. The Steve Irwin side issue is a red herring. Assize 13:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Even more secondary sources added. Assize 12:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn church, an unsourced rumor of a notable person's conversion that is somehow associated with this church does not make it notable. Frevvin's sake, every church, parking lot, examination room, hospital emergency room, etc. can be the rumored site of someone's rumored conversion to something, it doesn't make them notable, however. Carlossuarez46 00:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - fails WP:CHURCH, which although rejected is a helpful guideline. JRG 00:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Wouldn't it meet that guideline as a megachurch ie. "megachurches are always notable'. Not that I think we should rely on WP:CHURCH. Assize 12:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - true, but there's no independent source showing that it is a megachurch (nor any indication in the article, apart from the church's wealth), so I'm not quite convinced. JRG 12:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply Point taken. Anyway, WP:CHURCH wasn't accepted by the community anyway. Assize 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All, keeping in mind User:Carlossuarez46's comments regarding the "conversion". Lankiveil 09:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete Liverpool Christian Life Centre as having only local news, and Shire Christian Centre appears to only hold 1000 and be most notable (recently) for a funeral. OTOH, Kings Christian Church is very big; comparable to Hillsong Church (not as big, but its not in Sydney). John Vandenberg 03:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably needs a few more Hillsong style controversies for notability. Recurring dreams 08:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not appear to satisfy notability concerns. Zivko85 15:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep just fix it up - it's a massive church lol 58.104.55.37 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • IP's should generally not be allowed to vote in AfD discussions. Morgan Wick 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to Admin closing this AfD. This discussion has appeared to have stopped. All votes to delete bar one predate the introduction of numerous secondary sources into the subject article (when it previously had none). I would ask that you take this into consideration when closing the discussion. Assize 05:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the secondary sources added by Assize now establish notability. Davewild 07:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per secondary sources - and please avoid multiple article afds - these churches are different and each needs considered on its merits-Docg 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Keep: I'm generally down on the notability of local churches, but this one demonstrably passes the WP:V bar.  RGTraynor  17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My !vote to delete still stands regardless of the new changes. I still feel that all the above articles fail to meet WP:N. I am not sure that I should have to come back and reaffirm my opinion each time there is a change in the article either. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The arguments to keep apply, I think, only to the main article listed. If this isnt clear, their part will need to be re-listed separately.DGG 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure anyone noticed the bundled nom. Morgan Wick 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Still Delete the sources do not confer notability. The links establish that the pastor uses a helicopter; was one of several who went to some drought-ridden farm zone and prayed for rain; and a few "human interest stories" from the local newspapers that focus as much or more on the parishoners than on the church, including the great one about a couple who married "young". Still not different than any other church, really, and similarly not notable. Carlossuarez46 01:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I would suggest that the article "A brand new church" is a substantial article in a major Australian newspaper about the church, and which is more than what most other types of organisations get (particularly those written in Wikipedia). Yes, the other articles are "filler" stories and individually, don't add up to much. However, together I would argue that they go to show that the organisation has some notable impact on the Sunshine Coast of Queensland. Assize 12:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Most churches and even restaurants get that level of coverage; I would also submit that an organization having impact locally does not make it notable - there are lots of small towns in Mexico, e.g., where the local parish church has a heckuva lot of impact on the lives of the people there, it doesn't make each of them notable even if they get featured in the local paper; there is no reason to deviate from our notability guideline in this instance. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think we will have to differ on this. Notability is not fame, but famous things are notable. Quoting from WP:N, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it". In that case, I would submit that the local parish church in Mexico would be notable under WP:N if they received independent coverage by non-trivial published works, and only if they received that coverage. This is not directed at you, but it seems that just because an article has the word school or church in it, it automatically makes it non-notable simply because there are so many. Assize 11:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources illustrate that it is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Still Delete Information added still seems incidental to the subject of the article itself. Recurring dreams 11:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I know that size is not a reason for keeping a church, but we have a list of 16 largest chruches in Australia (with some statistics). I would have thought it did no harm to have articles on each - 15 of the 16 do. Peterkingiron 00:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As the creator of this article and the other 2 articles considered for deletion, I believe that they deserve individual articles because of their place on the List of the largest churches in Australia. While the articles on the churches are not yet of sufficient notability, the churches are some of the largest and most influential churches in Australia and increasingly have media coverage (as King's Christian Church has shown), and will increase in length and also in secondary sources. Tatie2189 05:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep' As modified, the article provides multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 22:00, 15 June 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.