Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queenstown Baptist Church

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Ral315 16:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queenstown Baptist Church

Individual churches are not notable. Being in first person and probably a copyvio are also strikes against it. I would have listed it for copyvio but I was hoping to get consensus to delete instead of getting it rewritten. The categories it's in are bothersome, as well. Zoe 07:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

We do have plenty of pages for individual churches if they are notable enough. The main grouse I have with this page is how it was compied word for word from the official site. Re-writing it may save the article.--Huaiwei 07:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that some churches are notable, but this one isn't. Zoe 07:29, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

You didnt mention why thou.--Huaiwei 07:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It's just "generic church number 475". Nothing special about it. Zoe 07:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Would you mind being more specific? What 475?--Huaiwei 08:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

475 was just a number I pulled out of the air, indicating the lack of notablity of the subject matter. Zoe 08:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Erm...I would expect stronger commentary from the proposer of this deletion. Besides claiming it was not notable due to your believe that individual churches have no place in wikipedia, do you have anything else notable to say?--Huaiwei 08:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what more you want. The church is not notable, it does not deserve an article in Wikipedia any more than the church next door to where I live does. Nor any more than any other church. I do agree there are exceptions -- noted cathedrals, the Crystal Cathedral, Notre Dame, St. Patrick's, etc. Zoe 08:51, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

What I want is pretty clear. You claim it is just your typical church next door. Now show us if that is true. Singapore is not some Christian country where churches are as common as grocery stores. Sure, we arent exactly adding the smallest churches here, but mind telling if this is completely non-notable other then basing it on your own personal ignorance?--Huaiwei 08:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This recent attack indicates that you are not interested in discussion on the subject but are more intrested in scoring points. I will not discuss this with you any further. Zoe 09:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I dont know how this can be an attack? If you want to nominate something, its basic courtesy to provide your justifications for it, and not just dismiss it as not notable just because you know next to nothing about it. Did you do any research on this before nominating it? From the above, I doubt so, and I hence I strongly question the validity of this nomination. I dont see how I would be "scoring points" in the above exercise?--Huaiwei 09:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Copyviol, and honestly, when it comes down to it, it's a Church, it's of the Baptist denomination, and it's in Queenstown, Singapore. What else really is there? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally I am still undecided on this one. I am wondering if the church has any significance at all in local religious history, or whether the building itself is notable in the architectural realm.--Huaiwei 08:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is a clear indication, I'd delete it. If you uncover significant information later, it can always be recreated. As it stands, the whole article is a mission statement - so it's not just copyviol, it's NPOV as well. I don't see anything really salvageable, even stub-wise. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright then. Since the entire contents were copied from the church site, we can all expect it to have NPOV problems. I am not too enthusiastic about keeping this article until we find more information about it as well.--Huaiwei 09:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a Baptist church, one of many. Pilatus 10:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per zoe and khaosworks. --TimPope 11:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable church. Nandesuka 12:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. The burden is on the article to prove it's notability (or at least claim it). In this case, <100 Google hits and Alexa of homepage 5,311,151. Beware systemic bias, etc. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. Nothing notable about the church is stated. In any case, the peacock words and the unsupported POV ("God protecting QBC in its infancy stage") need to be removed; once that is done nothing remains. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup (unless copyvio), verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 14:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up (I'll clean it myself if it survives) A 50 year-old Church in Singapore, operating in three languages, and two congregations, is at least as notable as a small school in the midwest US. Where is the systematic bias lying here? --Doc (?) 15:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Good luck. I've added tags "unreferenced", "cleanup-tone" and "cleanup-importance". Sdedeo 18:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per the Doc and 92 English google hits for a church in Singapore. Kappa 16:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The current content is so far from encyclopedic that it's hard to figure out what might be notable. If the article is cleaned up sufficiently I might change my vote. --Metropolitan90 17:28, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup, or else delete. — Instantnood 18:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual churches are not notable. The history of our church reflects the testimony of God protecting QBC from its infancy stage to where we are now. We are confident that He will continue to bless our church and use us as His living witnesses in the years to come. Sdedeo 18:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Church, huh? Not many of them around. -Splash 23:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Proto t c 13:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 09:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a church directory. Gamaliel 19:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Singopo 02:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This would divide Singapore's Wikipedia users by religions. Singapore needs religious harmony. Ruennsheng 08:21, 12 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.