499:
organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." Is there evidence from outside the area of notability? There is, AFAICT, mentions of this organization only in one local newspaper article. If that's it, it's not notable. If there is more, there has been ample opportunity to establish it. Note that the lack of notability is impeding the ability of the article to be based upon verifiable sources. Indeed,
557:. As an example, see that if you exclude "-Piper" from the Google Scholar search, suddenly you have only sixteen cites, you find that none of them is actually about BBC. If you think the article can satisfy verifiability, don't you think it should be possible to find verifiable sources for the stuff in the article so easily, given your confidence? I looked, and I couldn't find any. Perhaps the thing to do is to pepper it with
538:. This church passes for notability on a number of levels. Longevity -- evidenced by the sources, is simply one of them, and the fastest way for me to note it. But I do think that before people nom an article for deletion wp:before suggests that it is incumbent upon them to spend 2 minutes doing a google search.--
576:
Hi. I totally assumed good faith (even in the above). I just questioned whether despite good faith a wp:before review was engaged it. wp:org also has language re, if the depth of the refs is not as much as we generally would like, but the refs are many, notability can also be evidenced. If I have
552:
Please assume good faith. I did of course searche, and what I found was consistently mention that someone was a member, and only local press. Piper is mentioned all the time (no doubt he's notable), and BBC comes up, again and again, as where he is pastor, but not as the subject of the article. If
681:
I understand that primary sources don't count towards notability. But "prohibited original research" to refer to them? I didn't think so. Can you point to where that is stated? Perhaps I missed it. I belive that we do have some sources now beyond original sources. Where I couldn't get into the
603:
are independent requirements, I suspect that if you (or the page's authors) could find actual verifiable secondary sources for the many statements made in the article, the issue of notability would be settled. And, if you (or they) can't find any such sources, then the article should be removed for
802:
There really ought to be some descriptions of it in conventional 3rd party sources in that time. Does the city have no newspapers? Has nobody written a book about the churches in general? Has no one outside the local church written a book or historical article published by someone other than the
758:
I'm not sure I'm looking at the same source. Jayjg's quote is about the church (as is much of the other text in the paragraph he took it from). And I don't know what you mean when you say this is a "directory source". The author does not appear to be connected at all to the church. I actually
666:
Again, I have to say, so far it's a whole lot of nothing. A lot of primary historical sources from an archive (which makes the article prohibited original research) and a few mentions. Look, notability is about people, outside the organization, taking note, on a broad and not local basis. That
507:
independent sources of information to establish even the basic question of how long the organization has been around, the names of its leaders, when services were in different languages, etc. The only sources seem to be unpublished internally produced histories of the organization. Consider how
985:
Hi RF. Actually, I see it slightly differently on two counts. First, there may well be a keep consensus expressed above, and the delete votes were largely cast before the full complement of RS refs were added. Second, all 18 refs relate to the church, but few if any are used in the article to
353:-- This is a substantial article given the history of a church that has been around for 130 years. It would be a waste for it to be deleted. Most of the artivcle is NOT about the present long-serving pastor, so that merging with his article or redirecting to it would be utterly inappropriate.
498:
Note that the mention that longevity may be taken into account, does not supercede the requirement that notability be more than purely local. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the
561:
tags, wait a months, remove the non-verifiable stuff, and then start the AfD again, with evidence that there is virtually nothing verifiable and non-self-published to rely on in writing the article. (Start with this: what, pray tell, were the sources used by the article's authors?)
651:
I'm not sure I follow. We now have 10 sources between the references and ELs. The existence of each of those can be confirmed by the inline link. 5 are secondary, 4 are primary, and the last 1is in the middle but closer perhaps to primary (Baptist
General Conference of
726:
930:
I've added a number of RS refs today, including one in which C. Douglas Weaver, Director of
Undergraduate Studies and Associate Professor of Religion at Baylor University, has called "the best-known congregation in the Baptist General Conference at the turn of the 21st
160:
469:
The guideline that allows us to keep an article based on the long history of the subject is when the subject would not otherwise meet the notability criteria. So this seems to me a perfect situation to apply that exception.
250:
Note that this is simply one local article, only peripherally about the organization in question. "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability," from
803:
church and discussed it? However, this is not a problem with respect to V. For routine facts about an organization, it's own web site and publications are acceptable unless theye matter is challenged or controversial.
618:
OK, I've taken a few minutes and added a few. Even ignoring the self-published material, there is enough in the article now to confirm its 130 year old history, and if anyone wants to use google they can add more
633:
You added one self-published resource, but it's hard not to be suspicious. Do you have a copy of the book? Did you examine it? Let's assume, no. So what we have is one source in a directory, and
154:
682:
original source, I listed it as an EL rather than as a ref supporting any proposition. That way if this survives, people will know of its existence and can pursue it if they are interested.--
94:
89:
98:
900:
on totality of merit, including history, size, third-party non-local reliable sources, etc. Not a strong keep because it's still in the "judgment call" area, but I call it as a keep.
421:. Long history or having multiple sites are not, in themselves, notability. There is this one article which mentions it as an example of a growing social phenomenon (cited above by
81:
121:
535:
303:
531:
329:
578:
386:
Since it's so trivially obvious, can you do more than google searches, and show us some non-local articles which are about BBC as a prime focus of the article?
604:
that reason. (Note that the book you refer to is self-published, and is not sufficient to function as a source of verifiablity, or evidence of notability.)
527:
484:
The guideline is not simply that anything which has been around a hundred years passes notability even if nobody talks much about it in the world at large.
85:
175:
142:
455:
I think if it were notable, it would have been noted more than that. It's a judgment call, and my judgment is, not notable. One article, one time?
595:
I think it might be even more productive to focus on verifiability, remembering that self-published sources, blogs, etc., are no good. Since both
667:
just hasn't happened. And the catalog of archive sources isn't itself a source: only the actual documents would be, and have you checked those?!
637:
no independent verifiable anything about the church. I think it's time to edit the article to remove all that cannot be verified. Shall we?
77:
69:
965:
There is little consensus here, and given the new references that have been added which would make good references showing the notability of
136:
995:
978:
957:
940:
922:
892:
873:
848:
834:
814:
794:
768:
753:
733:
691:
676:
661:
646:
628:
613:
590:
571:
547:
521:
493:
479:
464:
450:
434:
409:
395:
379:
362:
344:
318:
290:
264:
243:
222:
200:
63:
132:
230:. Rather more notable than the average church, given its history and size. It is a multi-location or "chain church", as discussed in
17:
182:
553:
we prune the obits, the articles about Piper, and so forth, we don't actually get anything notable: and, here's the kicker,
912:
148:
1008:
948:
per both Jayjg and DGG. History and description by self is enough. Sources added by
Epeefleche make that a clear keep.
36:
577:
time, I will look at the hits more, with your comments in mind, though. As far as their source, it may have been
916:
1007:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
56:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
966:
358:
210:
441:
Actually, the guideline allows us to look at that as indicia of notability where it would otherwise fail.--
869:
974:
196:
991:
936:
844:
786:
764:
687:
657:
624:
586:
543:
475:
446:
405:
375:
970:
370:-- per 130 yr history, and all manner of notability criteria, as shown by a simple google search.--
213:
as he appears notable. Most references to the church are to him as well (large number, in fact).
192:
168:
49:
274:
354:
239:
953:
908:
865:
340:
314:
218:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
231:
987:
932:
840:
781:
780:- I have a 130 year old tree in my backyard. It doesn't have any reliable sources though.
760:
683:
653:
620:
582:
539:
471:
442:
401:
371:
861:
725:. This 130 year old church is clearly notable. A lengthy history, and is described as
600:
596:
509:
252:
888:
810:
422:
235:
400:
I've now included a number of both local and non-local RSs as refs in the article.--
949:
901:
830:
749:
672:
642:
609:
567:
517:
489:
460:
430:
391:
336:
310:
283:
260:
214:
115:
730:
508:
tiny this article would be if we removed that which is not verifiable under
883:
805:
881:
There are now,. Zondervan is a very reputable publisher in the field.
826:
745:
668:
638:
605:
563:
513:
485:
456:
426:
387:
256:
277:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
1001:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
555:
we don't get anything to verify any of the stuff in the article
839:
There are, and a number have now been added to the article.--
727:"a flagship congregation of the Baptist General Conference"
526:
Its not clear to me that wp:before has been followed. See
744:, and not about BBC, and, once again, a directory source.
191:
contested prod. not clear how this church is notable.
111:
107:
103:
167:
282:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
181:
969:, seems like a merge is a good compromise here.--
304:list of Christianity-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1011:). No further edits should be made to this page.
330:list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions
8:
821:There essentially are none. That's because
324:
298:
328:: This debate has been included in the
302:: This debate has been included in the
759:think this was a great find by Jayjg.--
78:Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis)
70:Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis)
740:Once again, a citation that is about
503:in the article is sourced; there are
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
996:21:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
979:21:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
958:20:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
941:18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
923:16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
893:15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
874:23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
849:20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
835:20:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
815:17:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
795:11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
769:20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
754:23:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
734:01:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
692:08:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
677:03:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
662:23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
647:23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
629:02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
614:23:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
591:23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
572:23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
548:18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
522:17:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
494:17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
480:17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
465:15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
451:06:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
435:04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
410:20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
396:23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
380:04:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
363:15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
345:02:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
319:02:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
291:23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
265:17:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
244:04:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
223:23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
201:23:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
64:21:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
425:). That's not notability.
1028:
864:to establish notability.
1004:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
967:John Piper (theologian)
211:John Piper (theologian)
44:The result was
921:
920:
347:
333:
321:
307:
293:
1019:
1006:
986:discuss Piper.--
906:
905:
862:reliable sources
823:it's not notable
793:
789:
784:
334:
308:
288:
281:
279:
186:
185:
171:
119:
101:
59:
34:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1009:deletion review
1002:
791:
787:
782:
559:citation needed
284:
272:
128:
92:
76:
73:
57:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1025:
1023:
1014:
1013:
998:
982:
981:
960:
943:
925:
895:
876:
854:
853:
852:
851:
818:
817:
797:
774:
773:
772:
771:
737:
736:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
496:
438:
437:
415:
414:
413:
412:
383:
382:
365:
348:
322:
295:
294:
280:
269:
268:
267:
247:
246:
225:
189:
188:
125:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1024:
1012:
1010:
1005:
999:
997:
993:
989:
984:
983:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
961:
959:
955:
951:
947:
944:
942:
938:
934:
929:
926:
924:
918:
914:
910:
903:
899:
896:
894:
890:
886:
885:
880:
877:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
856:
855:
850:
846:
842:
838:
837:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
819:
816:
812:
808:
807:
801:
798:
796:
790:
785:
779:
776:
775:
770:
766:
762:
757:
756:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
738:
735:
732:
728:
724:
721:
720:
693:
689:
685:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
650:
649:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
631:
630:
626:
622:
617:
616:
615:
611:
607:
602:
598:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
580:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
560:
556:
551:
550:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
511:
506:
502:
497:
495:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
477:
473:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
454:
453:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
416:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
385:
384:
381:
377:
373:
369:
366:
364:
360:
356:
355:Peterkingiron
352:
349:
346:
342:
338:
331:
327:
323:
320:
316:
312:
305:
301:
297:
296:
292:
289:
287:
278:
276:
271:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
249:
248:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
60:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1003:
1000:
962:
945:
927:
897:
882:
878:
857:
822:
804:
799:
777:
741:
722:
634:
558:
554:
504:
500:
418:
367:
350:
325:
299:
285:
273:
232:this article
227:
206:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
54:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
931:century".--
652:America).--
368:Strong Keep
155:free images
988:Epeefleche
933:Epeefleche
841:Epeefleche
761:Epeefleche
684:Epeefleche
654:Epeefleche
621:Epeefleche
619:sources.--
583:Epeefleche
540:Epeefleche
472:Epeefleche
443:Epeefleche
402:Epeefleche
372:Epeefleche
898:Weak Keep
337:• Gene93k
311:• Gene93k
971:RadioFan
928:Comment.
913:contribs
423:Eastmain
275:Relisted
236:Eastmain
193:RadioFan
122:View log
963:Comment
950:JoshuaZ
902:davidwr
800:Comment
501:nothing
470:IMHO.--
286:JForget
215:Collect
161:WP refs
149:scholar
95:protect
90:history
917:e-mail
866:Crafty
858:Delete
778:Delete
731:Jayjg
419:Delete
133:Google
99:delete
889:talk
811:talk
783:Cynof
742:Piper
635:still
234:. --
207:Merge
176:JSTOR
137:books
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
992:talk
975:talk
954:talk
946:keep
937:talk
909:talk
879:Keep
870:talk
845:talk
831:talk
792:avuf
765:talk
750:talk
723:Keep
688:talk
673:talk
658:talk
643:talk
625:talk
610:talk
601:WP:N
599:and
597:WP:V
587:talk
579:this
568:talk
544:talk
536:this
534:and
532:this
530:and
528:this
518:talk
510:WP:V
490:talk
476:talk
461:talk
447:talk
431:talk
406:talk
392:talk
376:talk
359:talk
351:Keep
341:talk
326:Note
315:talk
300:Note
261:talk
253:WP:N
240:talk
228:Keep
219:talk
197:talk
169:FENS
143:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
58:Talk
46:keep
915:)/(
911:)/(
884:DGG
860:no
806:DGG
581:.--
512:!
335:--
309:--
209:To
183:TWL
120:– (
994:)
977:)
956:)
939:)
891:)
872:)
847:)
833:)
827:Tb
825:.
813:)
767:)
752:)
746:Tb
729:.
690:)
675:)
669:Tb
660:)
645:)
639:Tb
627:)
612:)
606:Tb
589:)
570:)
564:Tb
546:)
520:)
514:Tb
505:no
492:)
486:Tb
478:)
463:)
457:Tb
449:)
433:)
427:Tb
408:)
394:)
388:Tb
378:)
361:)
343:)
332:.
317:)
306:.
263:)
257:Tb
255:.
242:)
221:)
199:)
163:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
51:NW
48:.
990:(
973:(
952:(
935:(
919:)
907:(
904:/
887:(
868:(
843:(
829:(
809:(
788:G
763:(
748:(
686:(
671:(
656:(
641:(
623:(
608:(
585:(
566:(
542:(
516:(
488:(
474:(
459:(
445:(
429:(
404:(
390:(
374:(
357:(
339:(
313:(
259:(
238:(
217:(
195:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
118:)
80:(
61:)
55:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.