48:. However, the sourcing is underwhelming. Sources 1 and 2 have identical material and clearly reprint a publicity release by the Church; I have removed one since having both is simply padding. I have removed reference 4 since it was a circular lift from Wkikipedia. Many of the other sources are of a directory nature or deal with incidental aspects of the Church's activities. Having said this there is validity in
727:
users who join with the intention of improving the encyclopaedia as a whole over a wide subject area - even those who break rules and have to be corrected by other editors - have a good chance of staying, whilst those whose main agenda is to push a single article/product/viewpoint tend to make no further contributions, whether or not their intended article gets deleted.
708:"not enough volunteers" is a serious problem. I submit that if Wilipedia maintained a less combative environment, and if editors were able to spend less of their time on AFD debates and more on working together to improve articles, more people would be willing to edit. When all of this time is spent debating whether a perfectly respectable church like Carer or
457:
and another when he leaves. If you can find this coverage (and GNews and GBooks doesn't pick up everything), there can be an article. If not, it can be merged to the article on
Reading quite easily. Should someone find more information that demonstrates the church's notability later, it's a simple matter to restore the old article and add the new information.
674:
you to head a seminary is an indication that this congregation is something above the ordinary. I leave others to judge whether this meets
Knowledge (XXG)'s standards of notability. For my part, I fail to see the point of working to delete reasonably well-sourced and well-written articles. Wouldnt it be better to spend our time improving them?
52:'s point that "a verifiable and neutrally-written article has been constructed". The consensus is that the key points should be kept in some form but whether as a standalone page or merged as part of the locality article is moot. The next step should be to take the discussion to the talk page in order to agree which form is best.
693:
is defined as significant coverage from independent reliable third-party sources. Find stuff that has been written about the church (that's the church itself, not just people associated with it, and it needs to be more than passing mentions in local papers), and Carey
Baptist Church gets an article.
673:
Well, speaking as someone who has served on a few hiring committees and been a member of a few congregations, I can tell you that ordinary churches hire ordinary pastors because that is who they can get. Hiring, in his second congregation, the kind of hot young preacher who is soon hired away form
456:
In order for the church to have been notable, it needs to have been written about in independent reliable third-party sources with significant coverage. Articles in local papers can count towards notability, but it would need to be a lot more than one article in a local paper when a pastor arrives
756:- Let's just forget all the hidden ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT agendas and stick to the essence: there are multiple, independent, non-trivial articles out there, from which a verifiable and neutrally-written article has been constructed. This more than century-old church is inclusion-worthy. The end.
726:
I'm afraid you are are underestimating how much bigger
Knowledge (XXG) would be if there were no rules on inclusion. About half of new articles are posted by single-purpose accounts intent on publicising themselves, their band, their business or something else they're connected with. In general,
688:
No, because there are millions on articles on
Knowledge (XXG) as it is and it's the same pool of volunteers who end up working on all of them. When you have too many articles and not enough volunteers (as has happened in the past), articles end up having libellous things inserted into them which
632:
In my view, the "localhuman interest" article makes the church notable almost all by itself because it is about this church funding a local man on a four-year long mission to Peru. Relatively few churches play in this league. The church also bought a neighboring church when that congregation
388:
What makes a congregation WP:notable? Having a recent pastor who is WP:notable. Being a large enough church to support two pastors. Being housed in an architecturally notable building. Supporting missionaries in India. The fact that a missionary they sponsor was among the many
Christian
611:
such as the collection of
Christmas gifts or the departure of a minister do not qualify the subject for notability in a worldwide encyclopedia. Nor does the church inherit whatever notability Stillman may have; some of the cited articles on Stillman don't even mention the church.
389:
missionaries in recent years arrested on trmped-up charges in a country where many people resent
Christian missionaries? The hiring or departure of a pastor meriting an article in the local paper. I believe that any or all of these add up to WP:notability for a congregation.
349:
But the article is useful even as it stands, and surely it is more efficient to keep it and tag it for improvement, than to remove it merely because it needs improvement and make some future editor replicate all of the sourcing and the image that the page already
158:
633:
departed (disbanded?), so it runs a significant campus, not a single building, and it has had two apparently full-time pastors for years. In my opinion, this is more than plenty. And their last pastor
651:
Funding a missionary, owning multiple buildings, and having two pastors are not notability criteria, and your reference to
Stephen, who doesn't appear to be notable either, is an attempt to invoke
574:
It takes a pretty significant congregation to send missionaries to India and Peru. You many or may not like missionaries, but it is not the scale of enterprise that ordinary churches undertake.
689:
don't get spotted. Besides, you are mixing up notability and claims of importance. Anyone can claim their club/business/product is notable through subjective claims of importance, which is why
479:
notability is not inherited, nothing about this church makes it any more notable than the 5000 member baptist church down the road from my house that I am forced to see every sunday.
331:. There seem to be a number of references in Google Books and Google Scholar, although. Some further research may establish sufficient notability for a separate article in future. --
238:
306:
It is fairly early for a
Baptist congregation to have erected a building on that scale in Britain. And churchs that survive for 150 years often acquire notibility along the way.
152:
215:
119:
261:
If the church is that old, there may well be coverage about it, but I didn't find any. Might be keepable if someone finds the coverage, but in the meantime,
189:
This is not a notable church. The building is not particularly special, and having the street named after the church is no big deal. The former minister,
408:
None of those would make a church notable. If we said those things make a church notable, we would have articles on most of the churches in the U.S.
92:
87:
96:
79:
269:. The fact this church exists and how long it's been around has a place in Knowledge (XXG). The section "Carey Today" certainly doesn't.
17:
173:
371:
This is a large, active church with a wonderful Ruskinian gothic building. I am improving the article and sourcing accordingly.
140:
664:
621:
199:
732:
699:
525:
462:
274:
780:
36:
134:
765:
736:
721:
703:
683:
668:
646:
625:
599:
583:
556:
529:
511:
488:
466:
447:
417:
398:
380:
359:
340:
315:
299:
278:
253:
230:
207:
61:
544:
435:
130:
83:
779:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
728:
695:
521:
501:
458:
270:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
180:
295:
652:
57:
634:
190:
717:
679:
642:
579:
507:
484:
413:
394:
376:
355:
311:
75:
67:
660:
617:
336:
166:
193:, is probably notable as a college principal, but this notability is not inherited by the church.
146:
552:
443:
328:
266:
203:
608:
517:
761:
291:
249:
226:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
53:
713:
675:
638:
575:
503:
480:
409:
390:
372:
351:
307:
709:
656:
613:
594:
332:
690:
548:
439:
194:
757:
245:
222:
49:
113:
637:
now heads a good-sized Seminary. But, as I said, we all judge differently.
290:. I wouldn't call a church established in 1867 "old" by British standards.
712:
can or cannot have a page, working here becomes less than appealing.
773:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
593:- Recent expansion to the article has now given it notability.
539:
I have struck the comments of User:BelloWello, who has been
430:
I have struck the comments of User:BelloWello, who has been
694:
Ignore the notability guidelines and it probably won't.
540:
431:
109:
105:
101:
165:
179:
239:list of Christianity-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
783:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
237:Note: This debate has been included in the
216:list of England-related deletion discussions
214:Note: This debate has been included in the
236:
213:
691:notability for Knowledge (XXG) purposes
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
655:, which is an argument to avoid.
543:from editing Knowledge (XXG) for
434:from editing Knowledge (XXG) for
1:
609:local human-interest pieces
329:Reading, Berkshire#Religion
267:Reading, Berkshire#Religion
800:
776:Please do not modify it.
766:17:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
737:12:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
722:11:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
704:07:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
684:00:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
669:22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
647:21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
626:20:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
600:19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
584:17:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
557:16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
530:16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
512:16:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
448:16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
62:01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
489:18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
467:18:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
418:18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
399:17:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
381:17:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
360:18:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
341:12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
316:17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
300:15:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
279:08:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
254:00:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
231:00:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
208:22:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
541:blocked indefinitely
516:Doesn't matter. See
432:blocked indefinitely
76:Carey Baptist Church
68:Carey Baptist Church
729:Chris Neville-Smith
696:Chris Neville-Smith
522:Chris Neville-Smith
459:Chris Neville-Smith
271:Chris Neville-Smith
256:
242:
233:
219:
791:
778:
635:Jonathan Stephen
597:
572:foreign missions
386:Further thoughts
243:
220:
191:Jonathan Stephen
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
44:The result was
34:
799:
798:
794:
793:
792:
790:
789:
788:
787:
781:deletion review
774:
595:
126:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
797:
795:
786:
785:
769:
768:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
710:College Church
629:
628:
607:. A couple of
602:
587:
586:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
493:
492:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
453:
452:
451:
450:
422:
421:
402:
401:
365:
364:
363:
362:
344:
343:
321:
320:
319:
318:
303:
302:
282:
281:
258:
257:
234:
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
796:
784:
782:
777:
771:
770:
767:
763:
759:
755:
752:
751:
738:
734:
730:
725:
724:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
692:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
672:
671:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
644:
640:
636:
631:
630:
627:
623:
619:
615:
610:
606:
603:
601:
598:
592:
589:
588:
585:
581:
577:
573:
570:
569:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:sock puppetry
542:
538:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
513:
509:
505:
502:
500:
497:
496:
495:
494:
491:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
468:
464:
460:
455:
454:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:sock puppetry
433:
429:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
419:
415:
411:
406:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
392:
387:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
367:
366:
361:
357:
353:
348:
347:
346:
345:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
322:
317:
313:
309:
305:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
286:
285:
284:
283:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:
255:
251:
247:
240:
235:
232:
228:
224:
217:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
198:
197:
192:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
775:
772:
753:
653:WP:INHERITED
604:
590:
571:
536:
498:
476:
475:
427:
407:
385:
368:
324:
292:Phil Bridger
287:
262:
195:
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
153:free images
54:TerriersFan
714:I.Casaubon
676:I.Casaubon
639:I.Casaubon
576:I.Casaubon
504:I.Casaubon
481:BelloWello
410:BelloWello
391:I.Casaubon
373:I.Casaubon
352:I.Casaubon
308:I.Casaubon
657:Roscelese
614:Roscelese
596:Spiderone
333:Whiteguru
246:• Gene93k
223:• Gene93k
665:contribs
622:contribs
549:OCNative
518:WP:ADHOM
440:OCNative
120:View log
758:Carrite
537:Comment
428:Comment
288:Comment
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
50:Carrite
605:Delete
477:Delete
200:Anselm
131:Google
97:delete
325:Merge
263:Merge
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
762:talk
754:Keep
733:talk
718:talk
700:talk
680:talk
661:talk
643:talk
618:talk
591:Keep
580:talk
553:talk
526:talk
508:talk
485:talk
463:talk
444:talk
414:talk
395:talk
377:talk
369:Keep
356:talk
350:has.
337:talk
312:talk
296:talk
275:talk
250:talk
227:talk
204:talk
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
46:keep
499:see
327:to
265:to
244:--
221:--
181:TWL
118:– (
764:)
735:)
720:)
702:)
682:)
667:)
663:⋅
645:)
624:)
620:⋅
582:)
555:)
547:.
528:)
520:.
510:)
487:)
465:)
446:)
438:.
416:)
397:)
379:)
358:)
339:)
314:)
298:)
277:)
252:)
241:.
229:)
218:.
206:)
196:St
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
760:(
731:(
716:(
698:(
678:(
659:(
641:(
616:(
578:(
551:(
524:(
506:(
483:(
461:(
442:(
412:(
393:(
375:(
354:(
335:(
310:(
294:(
273:(
248:(
225:(
202:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.