351:
between ethnic groups in the US. A second way this article could be developed (possibly complementary) is the active use of demographic targeting - I recall reading a Time or
Newsweek article on this somewhere, but a good sense of what's available can be found by searching the net for e.g. "Hispanic church outreach". I know the two links added by the original author are not necessarily done in the manner you would hope a mature and experienced editor would, but let's cut the newbies some slack - this is better than sticking the links in the external links of other articles. Calling it "spamming" isn't helpful - if this were a spammer for their own website, why also include the link for a competing service? The fact that multiple websites exist selling demographic information to churches is the kind of indication that this is worth writing about, surely? Just better than this, preferably :) Give this one some time and see if anyone wants to rescue it, rather than snowballing the deletion through; I can't be the only one who can see potential in this topic surely?
407:
harsh verdict) and on this article it's a little clearer that they're not spam (even if they wouldn't be present in the final version). This isn't my specialty area but I am quite certain that (a) the topic has received substantial media and academic coverage, and (b) (as the original editor was writing) there's a small slice of the economy that's devoted to actually analysing this stuff.
406:
Yes, I should have made myself clearer - when they were added as external links to the other article it verged on spam, but I was trying to say that I suspect even there it was intended in the correct spirit (newbies often fall afoul of external links, and then get accused of spamming, which may be a
373:
added to another article, though in the middle of the article rather than in an external links section. Tomorrow will be the full 7 days so it would be late for a snowball deletion anyway. If in the future you or anyone else can find evidence that this topic has had coverage, then I'm sure it can be
346:- this article could go two ways. Firstly, demographics of church organizations are a noteworthy topic of discussion - e.g. different denominations have different racial breakdowns in their congregations, and also different age segmentation (and indeed number of children born to their congregants).
350:
examines one aspect of denominational demographics, changes in racial breakdown of
Protestant megachurch congregations in the USA, but the issue is clearly wider. I am sure that specialist academic literature is available on at least the basic facts e.g. differences in denominational affiliations
272:
All the article is saying is that churches can use demographics. This is true. They have been doing this since the time of Saint Paul. However it does not seem to be a notable topic, unless sources saying something about the topic are provided.
155:
110:
190:
which was uncontested for 7 days. But the article's creator requested its restoration on my talk page. I still feel that the article doesn't merit inclusion; there's already a
149:
236:
115:
83:
78:
87:
202:
the two web sites that appear in the article, as the author has previously included those sites as inappropriate inline external links at the
194:
article and this article doesn't distinguish itself from it sufficiently. I find no significant coverage of the term "church demographics" by
70:
17:
291:
170:
137:
433:
36:
131:
416:
397:
360:
338:
322:
305:
282:
261:
225:
52:
127:
432:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
74:
177:
278:
66:
58:
412:
356:
347:
199:
163:
143:
318:
274:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
187:
408:
352:
375:
392:
332:
256:
220:
203:
49:
195:
301:
314:
191:
104:
380:
244:
208:
296:
426:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
100:
96:
92:
198:. I suspect that this article is really an attempt to
162:
186:I had originally deleted this article after it was
176:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
436:). No further edits should be made to this page.
237:list of Religion-related deletion discussions
8:
231:
235:: This debate has been included in the
330:as the one who prodded it. Unsourced.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
374:recreated without falling afoul of
24:
417:20:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
398:05:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
361:19:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
339:22:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
323:22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
306:22:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
283:21:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
262:21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
226:21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
53:21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
313:as unsourced original essay.
290:, as unsourced, spam, promo,
453:
348:This Time Magazine article
369:Actually, the site links
344:Don't rush to delete this
429:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
292:WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT
188:proposed for deletion
67:Church Demographics
59:Church Demographics
44:The result was
264:
240:
444:
431:
395:
389:
386:
383:
335:
259:
253:
250:
247:
241:
223:
217:
214:
211:
196:reliable sources
181:
180:
166:
118:
108:
90:
34:
452:
451:
447:
446:
445:
443:
442:
441:
440:
434:deletion review
427:
393:
387:
384:
381:
333:
257:
251:
248:
245:
221:
215:
212:
209:
204:church planting
123:
114:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
450:
448:
439:
438:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
401:
400:
364:
363:
341:
325:
308:
285:
266:
265:
184:
183:
120:
116:AfD statistics
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
449:
437:
435:
430:
424:
418:
414:
410:
405:
404:
403:
402:
399:
396:
391:
390:
377:
372:
368:
367:
366:
365:
362:
358:
354:
349:
345:
342:
340:
337:
336:
329:
326:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
307:
303:
299:
298:
293:
289:
286:
284:
280:
276:
271:
268:
267:
263:
260:
255:
254:
238:
234:
230:
229:
228:
227:
224:
219:
218:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
117:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
428:
425:
379:
370:
343:
331:
327:
310:
295:
287:
275:Steve Dufour
269:
243:
232:
207:
206:article. --
192:demographics
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
409:TheGrappler
353:TheGrappler
150:free images
334:Falcon8765
50:Courcelles
200:advertise
111:View log
315:Carrite
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
328:Delete
311:Delete
288:Delete
270:Delete
128:Google
88:delete
46:delete
378:. --
294:. --
171:JSTOR
132:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
413:talk
371:were
357:talk
319:talk
302:talk
297:Cirt
279:talk
233:Note
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
242:--
178:TWL
113:•
109:– (
415:)
385:am
382:At
376:G4
359:)
321:)
304:)
281:)
249:am
246:At
239:.
213:am
210:At
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
411:(
394:頭
388:a
355:(
317:(
300:(
277:(
258:頭
252:a
222:頭
216:a
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.