Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep all.  — fetch ·  comms   00:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Also nominating:
 * Alaska Baptist Convention
 * Arizona Southern Baptist Convention
 * Arkansas Baptist State Convention
 * California Southern Baptist Convention
 * Colorado Baptist General Convention
 * The Dakota Baptist Convention

All appear to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - as all per Notability for Non-commercial organizations Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. - no indication these are. Codf1977 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * &hellip; apart from the several encyclopaedias that they already have individual articles in, of course. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Alabama Baptist Convention is encyclopaedic, in the quite literal sense. My educated guess, without checking, is that the others will be, too.  I strongly advise checking. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no references in the general media that establishes notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Weak Keep The newly added references establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, many of them were already there when I made the edit above. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the Alabama article, at least, which has been reborn as a substantive and well-cited historical article through the redemptive efforts of Uncle G. I agree with Uncle G that these topics are inherently encyclopedic, and will be interested in hearing Uncle G's opinion about whether the other articles can be similarly saved.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Arkansas Baptist State Convention &mdash; almost certainly. See its further reading section.
 * The Dakota Baptist Convention &mdash; This appears to be a 7-year-old organization. The Sioux Falls South Dakota Baptist Convention that I keep finding instead, in contrast, was founded on 1881-07-01.  I've not pulled this one apart fully, yet.
 * Arizona Southern Baptist Convention &mdash; I've not looked too hard here, either. But it's already in one encyclopaedia.  Of course, the Baptist Foundation of Arizona is a related topic. I've looked harder now ( 00:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC) ), and the article is now a sourced stub with some history of the original formation of the organization, and some sources in the further reading section that could be used for further expansion.
 * Colorado Baptist General Convention &mdash; As with Arizona, this is already in one encyclopaedia. And the article is now a sourced stub with sources for further expansion in both the references and further reading sections.
 * Alaska Baptist Convention &mdash; Now ( 03:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ) the same as for Arizona and Colorado.
 * I've not investigated the others. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I draw your attention to this edit whilst we are here. You have to laugh.  Goodness forfend that readers wanting to find History of Baptists in Alabama should be able to do so!  &#9786;  I dread to think what will happen when someone notices that we probably have the sources out of this little exercise to start on History of Baptists in Arkansas, too. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all. I'm sure this stuff is notable.  Probably crazy notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all. As the state-level organisations (or meetings of them) for a very major American denomination, I would have thought these were notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Agree with Peterkingiron and others arguing for this above. The Alabama State Convention is especially notable, it appears, because of its position on slavery before the American Civil War, which contributed to the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention and splitting apart of the national one - definitely significant and part of sectional tensions.  Article needs better explanation and updating with newer sources, as it is overly reliant on the 1881 Baptist Encyclopedia, but clearly there are valid, third-party, academic sources whose authors have studied the denomination, role of religion in southern states, and the way it developed in different states. Given the way demographics have been changing across the SW and West, changes in denominational membership and the state conventions are important today as well.Parkwells (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Agree with Peterkingiron and others arguing for this above. The Alabama State Convention is especially notable, it appears, because of its position on slavery before the American Civil War, which contributed to the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention and splitting apart of the national one - definitely significant and part of sectional tensions.  Article needs better explanation and updating with newer sources, as it is overly reliant on the 1881 Baptist Encyclopedia, but clearly there are valid, third-party, academic sources whose authors have studied the denomination, role of religion in southern states, and the way it developed in different states. Given the way demographics have been changing across the SW and West, changes in denominational membership and the state conventions are important today as well.Parkwells (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your contributions. I also created pages for the following state conventions which have been deleted. If you could advocate their restoration I would be very pleased.

State Convention of Baptist in Indiana Kansas-Nebraska Convention of Southern Baptists Baptist State Convention of Michigan Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention Mississippi Baptist Convention Board Nevada Baptist Convention Baptist Convention of New England Baptist Convention of New Mexico Baptist State Convention of North Carolina Northwest Baptist Convention Baptist Convention of Pennsylvania/South Jersey Toverton28 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)toverton28
 * Some of the nominated articles should be kept, some deleted, a follows:
 * Keep Alabama Baptist Convention, Arkansas Baptist State Convention, Arizona Southern Baptist Convention (although I note that the latter has no references, but some "further reading")
 * Delete Alaska Baptist Convention, Colorado Baptist General Convention, The Dakota Baptist Convention, California Southern Baptist Convention (with the latter, although it is referenced, all the references are either from the organisation themselves (including the University which they run) or from sources which may not meet WP:RS/WP:IS)
 * Following the sourcing mentioned below, and the work on the various articles, I am happy to change my recommendation to Keep all on the above list --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the other articles which Toverton28 has asked to be restored, without looking at them, I would suggest that if they are referenced, they should be restored otherwise not.
 * Comment May I remind participants at this AfD that such organisations would not be inherently notable (unless someone can find a policy or guideline that says so) - to show notability, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable independent sources; also even if some of the conventions are notable, that does not mean that all of them are. The articles I have suggested keeping have such references - excellent work, by the way, Uncle G! You'll notice that I extended this to include "Further reading" - I would hope that someone would be able to get a copy of this reading and add inline citations in the article! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A quick google books search shows that the Alaska Baptist Convention is covered in detail in Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists vol 3 on pages 1559-1561, here is the Google Books link. Colorado Baptist General Convention is covered on page 188 of The Southern Baptist Convention: a sesquicentennial history, here is the Google books link. The Dakota Baptist Convention received recent news coverage (albeit sectarian coverage here and here and at least mentions in AP coverage here. California Southern Baptist Convention is covered is many articles indexed by Google news archive, including, (need subscripton to get whole article from Fresno Bee, but summary is pretty clear),  (same), , and .  This leads me to believe that these two  three four, in addition to the others Phantomsteve voted keep on, have significant coverage. Novaseminary (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all. These are independent organizations that are members of a national association, not branches of the national organization. There seems to be plenty to be said about each: history, membership, churches, schools, missions, controversies etc. Some of the articles establish notability by citing sources, the others could easily be expanded and improved to show notability. E.g. this book search for the Arizona organization. We should not delete articles on subjects that are clearly notable just because the article does not yet include citations to prove notability. Better to add content and citations than nominate for deletion. WP:BEFORE. Articles for other state Baptist conventions, if notable (most probably are), could be created or restored, but should have significant content and citations so they are of value to the reader. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The "individual chapters/divisions..." language of WP:CLUB does not apply as these are affiliated, but distinct/independent groups from each other and the Southern Baptist Convention. As I noted above in response to Phantomsteve, it seems each, or at least most, on their own meets WP:ORG. Novaseminary (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for fun, does anyone want to nominate the Alabama article for DYK? The tagline could be something to do with the number of members it represents (1.3 million). I think it squeaks under the line for date and % expansion. A childish suggestion, and as a serious editor I am certainly not recommending this action. The article is still very much in flux with a lot to be added, and is decidedly short on pictures. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not beyond the bounds of possibility, and not as silly as you might think. Diogenes and Alexander was listed for DYK whilst at AFD.  They held off the DYK discussion until the closure of the AFD discussion.  On the other hand, that was me as well, it was only a fortnight ago, and we've already got two other DYK listings out of this discussion for history of Baptists in Alabama and history of Baptists in Kentucky, both of which are also me.  So I'm not going to suggest the Alabama article.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't either. I was being a bit sarcastic and apologize for that. But given the size and history of the organization, the amount already in the article and the amount of content that could be added, the nomination does seem sort of daft. Still, it has stimulated improvement, which is good. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.