Talk:Greater Grace World Outreach

Consensus on disputed paragraph
There seems to be an issue over one particular paragraph. This paragraph has been added, removed, readded, removed again, and so on many times. It is currently in the article. There needs to be consensus. Should the paragraph remain in the article? Please give feedback below. The paragraph in question is copied below:
 * GGWO's auditorium at the church campus in Baltimore was newly renovated in 2007, and currently seats a maximum of 1,300 people, although typical weekly attendance including all the services is around 3,000. Services are live webcast and audio and video recordings are available.

Ltwin (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a pure advertisement for the church. What place does it have in the article. If the church sat 25,000, or maybe even 9,000 but 1300? Is it a big moose lodge for goodness sakes. The church barely makes it into megachurch status.

There are many parts to the article that need to be redone. Much of the edit work here is by a GGWO supporter who has taken the notable portions of this wiki out. Take what is not notable out and add the notable.

I note there was a removal of the use of landmark in a sentence because it sounds sensational. No "landmark" has to do with the nature of the importance of a case. Not that it was sensational. GGWO's auditorium is not notable, sensational. landmark, or important to this wiki. It needs to go and the article needs to be edited for content and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.111.73 (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Citisism
I have BOLDLY restored the section on criticism, because it has been blanked by a SPA IP poster with one edit without valid edit summary. This was heavily discussed in 2008 and we came to a very balanced and neutral solution which balanced the concerns of anit-GGWO and pro-GGWO editors. I have reviewed the various iterations over the past 7 years, and have restored the most neutral and properly balanced version, while leaving out unsourced accusations. Before editing this very controversial section, please take to the TALK PAGE (here) to discuss, and be prepared to present reliable third party sources to support your suggested changes. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mission Ship "La Gracia".jpg

Regarding the adding of the Photo "La Gracia"
There was no copyright infringement on this photograph. I am the original photographer. I thought it appropriate. If you would not like it there that is fine but please contact Wikipedia that it was in no way a copyright infringement. Thank you --GWphotograph (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)