569:. The notion of notability is problematic as it all is a matter of perspective. The notion of number of worshippers being an important factor is merely an indicator of ones belief of what is important from a particular perspective. I personally couldn't give a toss if a lot of people attended a local church. What is important to me is if peoples lives are transformed by the existence of that faith community in the midst of society. If a person who receives the services of the community services agency of the church were no longer available, they (at least 1400 people and their families) would notice. Other agencies would notice (especially if they didn't have the resources that UnitingCare Kippax has). Other factors that need to be taken into account is the participation of the leadership and members within the wider community. What is their influence in society? How does their belonging to this particular faith community influence what they do? The fact that one of the ministry team was specifically invited by the Chief Minister of the ACT to participate in the Canberra 2030 strategic planning process is something to note - although this wasn't reported in the media. Another examples are obviously Lin Hatfield-Dodds, Karen Middleton and John Williamson. But there are a significant number of members of the congregation that are in senior positions of leadership in the community groups and the work context (eg within the Australian Public Service). I could provide some names but generally people who want to make the world a better place like to do it without any fanfare or public notoriety ;-).
497:
of the church ministers to be a member of the ACT Community
Inclusion Board. Two different Australian governments have given and continue to give their attention to Kippax. I think that "bare" mentions would be more like finding the name "Kippax" in a phone book, or in a list of businesses in the Kippax district.
496:
and/or his media office gave Kippax six mentions and awarded them a new program and AU$ 200,000. As for what the federal government reported, that is a matter of opinion as to whether AU$ 50,000 is trivial or substantial notice. The article already mentions that the ACT Chief
Minister appointed one
544:
to report on stuff, but to find the secondary sources. But I believe that you need to broaden your definition of sources to that beyond the main stream media. For example if a church denominational publication made reference to the local congregation. Stuff that Google News isn't going to pick up
539:
Sorry to be annoying but to put your trust in the newspapers to report such stuff is really questionable. The media for the most part doesn't get religion. And, in recent times, are more interested in sensationalist reporting of religion only when members are accused of hypocricy or are somehow
519:
the government makes public who is receiving the funding, but merely receiving government funding alone is not an indication of notability. Are there newspapers who see that Kippax is receiving money and decide to send a reporter down to interview the minister? It doesn't look like it.
156:
404:
instead of relevant previous AfD discussions, I don't have any feedback on the current consensus for what amounts to a preliminary presumption of a non-notabably-small church. My thinking on this is that any
216:
117:
363:
only lists 17 above 2000. The key thing is what "1400 people who use services at the church each week" actually means - it may mean 1400 use the church premises. In any case, see
150:
264:
494:
423:"My thinking on this is that any large church, 301-2000 weekend attendance, has a preliminary presumption of being notable" is not an established criterion in WP.
90:
85:
94:
59:
77:
455:, the ACT would be regional media, and the federal government would be national media. Total references for article is currently twenty.
17:
171:
138:
360:
339:
I added several references from the
Canberra Times. The church provides services to 1400 per week, which puts it closer to a
526:
480:
373:
228:
197:
386:
agree with above, the number of attendees is irrelevant, significant coverage is what is required which this sorely lacks.
451:
minister of the ACT government, and another from the
Australian federal government, each under policy I think constitute
592:
132:
36:
578:
554:
534:
506:
488:
464:
432:
418:
395:
381:
352:
331:
314:
297:
279:
254:
236:
205:
128:
502:
460:
414:
348:
310:
81:
591:
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
178:
73:
65:
574:
550:
54:
401:
400:
StAnselm, I agree with everything you said in your last post, the only problem is that by pointing me to
364:
498:
456:
410:
344:
306:
250:
191:. Obviously an active church, but when it comes down to it, just an ordinary church and non-notable.
288:
no coverage in gnews fails WP:ORG. and not all churches are notable so that argument doesn't work.
164:
144:
530:
484:
377:
275:
232:
201:
305:
I'm wondering why previous respondents have not added deadlink templates to the 13 references.
51:
570:
546:
428:
391:
293:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
327:
188:
246:
409:
church, 301-2000 weekend attendance, has a preliminary presumption of being notable.
521:
475:
368:
271:
223:
192:
515:
to notice the $ 50,000 - it's whether this has been noticed by secondary sources -
424:
387:
289:
111:
323:
406:
340:
585:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
444:
I added two more references, one from the media office of the
359:
I guess an
Australian megachurch would indeed be notable. The
470:
I'd have to disagree with you. These are bare mentions, not
107:
103:
99:
163:
540:
offending social sensibilities. Yes, it is not up to
177:
217:list of Christianity-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
595:). No further edits should be made to this page.
322:per nom and per LibStar. WP:ORG isn't met here.
265:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
8:
259:
211:
361:List of the largest churches in Australia
263:: This debate has been included in the
215:: This debate has been included in the
367:for the concept of "non-notable size".
245:, nonnotable individual congregation.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
453:strong indications of notability
1:
555:02:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
343:size than non-notable size.
60:12:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
579:06:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
535:08:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
507:07:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
489:03:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
465:03:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
433:06:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
419:23:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
396:21:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
382:18:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
353:16:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
332:23:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
315:02:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
298:07:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
280:00:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
255:15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
237:11:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
206:11:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
612:
588:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
74:Kippax Uniting Church
66:Kippax Uniting Church
472:significant coverage
511:But it's not up to
44:The result was
282:
268:
239:
220:
603:
590:
269:
221:
182:
181:
167:
115:
97:
34:
611:
610:
606:
605:
604:
602:
601:
600:
599:
593:deletion review
586:
499:Unscintillating
457:Unscintillating
450:
411:Unscintillating
345:Unscintillating
307:Unscintillating
124:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
609:
607:
598:
597:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
448:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
356:
355:
334:
317:
300:
283:
257:
240:
185:
184:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
608:
596:
594:
589:
583:
582:
581:
580:
576:
572:
571:Dean Tregenza
568:
556:
552:
548:
547:Dean Tregenza
543:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
525:
524:
518:
514:
510:
509:
508:
504:
500:
495:
492:
491:
490:
486:
482:
479:
478:
473:
469:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
454:
447:
434:
430:
426:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
408:
403:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
372:
371:
366:
362:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:
299:
295:
291:
287:
284:
281:
277:
273:
266:
262:
258:
256:
252:
248:
244:
241:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
218:
214:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
199:
196:
195:
190:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:Find sources:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
57:
56:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
587:
584:
566:
565:
541:
522:
516:
512:
476:
471:
452:
445:
443:
402:WP:BIGNUMBER
369:
365:WP:BIGNUMBER
336:
319:
302:
285:
260:
242:
224:
212:
193:
186:
174:
168:
160:
153:
147:
141:
135:
125:
50:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
187:This fails
151:free images
341:megachurch
247:NawlinWiki
517:of course
545:either.
118:View log
425:LibStar
388:LibStar
320:Delete'
303:Comment
290:LibStar
272:Grahame
157:WP refs
145:scholar
91:protect
86:history
48:. --
527:Anselm
481:Anselm
374:Anselm
324:Nick-D
286:Delete
243:Delete
229:Anselm
198:Anselm
189:WP:GNG
129:Google
95:delete
52:Lear's
46:delete
449:chief
407:large
172:JSTOR
133:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
575:talk
567:Keep
551:talk
531:talk
503:talk
493:The
485:talk
461:talk
446:head
429:talk
415:talk
392:talk
378:talk
349:talk
337:Keep
328:talk
311:talk
294:talk
276:talk
261:Note
251:talk
233:talk
213:Note
202:talk
165:FENS
139:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
55:Fool
179:TWL
116:– (
577:)
553:)
542:us
533:)
523:St
513:us
505:)
487:)
477:St
474:.
463:)
431:)
417:)
394:)
380:)
370:St
351:)
330:)
313:)
296:)
278:)
267:.
253:)
235:)
225:St
219:.
204:)
194:St
159:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
573:(
549:(
529:(
501:(
483:(
459:(
427:(
413:(
390:(
376:(
347:(
326:(
309:(
292:(
274:(
270:—
249:(
231:(
222:—
200:(
183:)
175:·
169:·
161:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
131:(
123:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.