Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longview Baptist Temple

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longview Baptist Temple

Unnotable church. Article claims it has 3,000 in attendence, but this is not sourced. Fails notability and doesn't even assert any. Arbusto 01:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't decided on this one either way. Academics have apparently documented the congregation size on a list of megachurches. There is a book about the church, albeit a self-published one. One commentator describes the place as notorious, suggesting it's notable at least within some particular community. Other people apparently agree. However, I haven't seen a lot of WP:RS-friendly material to make an article out of, so I've mainly limited myself to removing the occasional vandalism that is presumably from the LBT people themselves. I think I'm leaning toward a keep, but I'm open to persuasion or new evidence. William Pietri 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Regarding your claims:

1) Yes, the church is listed among 1,300 other US churches. It claims attendance is 3,000 meaning it is as big as a high school on Sundays. 2) That book is published by a pastor at the church. It does NOT prove notability because any pastor can write about his church, self publish it, and list it at amazon.com 3) Yes, there are blogs that mention it. I don't see any that meet WP:V, which can establish notability?

I could be wrong, but how do these prove notability for inclusion? Arbusto 02:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's one of many megachurches; I don't know what the threshhold is, but I thought I'd mention it. The book is actually by a pastor at a different church; he was a former LBT member and his book is an expose. I know that blogs aren't reliable sources, but the amount of discussion about it suggests to me that it may be notable. Naturally, all facts in the article should be verifiable, and blogs don't count for that. As I said, I'm not sure which way to go on this, but I thought I'd post what I turned up i my research. William Pietri 06:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No notability. --The Way 09:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Eusebeus 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, on the above evidence it doesn't seem notable. EdJohnston 16:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 00:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that overstates the case. There are very few churches that have entire critical books written about them. This may not be notable (I haven't made up my mind yet) but it's pretty far from cruft. William Pietri 04:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• mergeI beleive that, no, this church is not notable in and of itself but it is notable as the founding control of Texas Baptist College, though that page is up for discussion as well if you will read what I said on that discussion, The college is needed on wikipedia if only to provide an unbiased opinion of the school, providing both the controversial and the positives. --MJHankel 03:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability to create a standard for notability of individual churches. We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches. We reinvent the wheel arguing over each individual church as to what the global criteria should be. Size definitely should not be the only criterion, any more than it is for schools. Edison 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that MJHankel (talk · contribs)'s reason for keeping Texas Baptist College is because be wants every article kept no matter what sources of WP:V issues. See his comments on that afd. Arbusto 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment as should also be noted, I said all topics not all things Colleges Are much more notable than churches, Encyclopedias are supposed to contain a vast knowledge of the world, I have not and will never claim tat all articles should be kept, Had the college not have controversy related to it I would not find it notable either. --MJHankel 05:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem confused the book is about the church not the "college". The book is self-published by a former member of the church. (Read the above.)Arbusto 06:29, 9 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.