Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooddale 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. Majorly (hot!) 10:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wooddale Church

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

Unremarkable place of worship. Contested prod. MER-C 03:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No real assertion of notability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's one of the largest churches in the Twin Cities, and you can see the spire from anywhere in Eden Prairie. It almost qualifies as a megachurch, though I'm not sure how many people attend any single service. I'm still having trouble coming up with an enthusiastic "keep" vote for this one, though, but it's definitely larger and possibly more notable than 95% of the churches in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area (give or take). --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the article, it is a megachurch with attendance averaging 5,000 each week. The Governor is a member and attends. The Senior Pastor is head of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 30 million Christians. The hall's acoustics are fine enough to make it a regular venue for symphony orchestras and respected chamber orchestras. Satisfies WP:ATT. Clearly one of the most important churches in the U.S. Edison 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Edison. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - There's no assertion of notability, and some of the points mentioned above (the governor's membership; the acoustics) are irrelevant; the pastor's association with the Nat'l Asociation of Evangelicals is more appropriate for an article about him. The para about their planting of six other churches is much better evidence. There's also a strong whiff of copy-and-paste about the article; the lack of a lead and the curious shift in tense from the 1995 paragraph "Weekly attendance in worship services averages nearly 3,500" to 2006 "attendance was averaging 5,000 per week" is suspicious. I think this one may be fixable, though. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and referenced. Clean it up though... Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Edison; though the article should be improved. Acalamari 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable--Greatestrowerever 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep accepting some of Edison's arguments. Its a large parent Church with subsidiaries, and tied to a notable minister. Much of the article is over-detailed. I just condensed some. DGG 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The lack of extensive attribution is a fault of lazyiness, not unverifiability. Passes the notability citeria for organizations as a notable megachurch within the sphere of the National Association of Evangelicals that has been covered by the media and is also the church of a noted figure in the news, the Rev Ted Haggard. No proof of meeting the criteria for deletion has been met in the nomination and it meets all the needed criteria: WP:N, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:V. NeoFreak 00:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, sourced and seems notable enough to be here.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - a church with a substantial membership and that is planting others seems notable to me. Peterkingiron 14:55, 15 April 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.