Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banners Gate Community Church


 * 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   delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Banners Gate Community Church

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable and WP:NOTDIR -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any viable reason for this page's deletion Musicalphilosophy (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A lack of notability is a valid reason to delete a page. The page does not assert notability and I could not find any evidence of notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, no secondary sources conferring notability on this church. Google News gave quite a few passing mentions in the local press, but nothing of any substance. Huon (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notability, and it sounds like every other church. --Vh o scythe'''chatter 12:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, there doesn't seem to be any viable reason for this page's keeping. So what if it's a partnership: that happens with other organisations, not to mention union presbyteries before the formation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - many churches are notable, but not this one. lack of history and claim to notability --T-rex 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you give me chance to collate the information (instead of slamming a delete mandate on the page) you'll find that the building itself has a history, not to mention an organ that has an interesting back story and is widely known in the area. Seems like anti-Christian behaviour to me Musicalphilosophy (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no mandate to delete the page yet. What we are doing here is to give an editor the mandate to delete or retain this page.  I deemed the article to be non-notable based on the content, lack of references and a google search. If this church is included there may well be thousands of other churches in the UK and 100's of 1000's worldwide that should be included. I doubt Wikipedia is ever going to list all these churches therefore this particular church should not be included.  Note that this is not anti-Christian. Wikipedia is based on having a neutral point of view. All information is based on "what is out there" and not what one particular person or organisation wants to document. This is a damn sight better then pre-internet days. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - a total of four ghits, two of them to wikipedia, as per here, does not give me much reason to think this church has established independent notability. Should notablity be established, of course the article could be recreated. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there enough external links and references now? I'd like to draw you're attention to the Streetly website, which has hardly any independant info, and there is no request for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalphilosophy (talk • contribs) 09:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It is a pity that WP policy is to delete articles on churches so frequently. The article is porrly referenced, but that warrants an unreferenced tag not AFD.  I believe that there are guidelines on notability at WP:CHURCH.  Unfortunately, the truth is that most churches are NN in the worldwide context. even if fairly notable locally.  The decision has been taken that secondary schools are notable, but they are at any one time a community of perhaps 600-1000 people, whereas a church may be serving a community of several thousand, even though it only has a regular congregation of 100 or so.  This article is barely more a week old, and written (I think) by a new editor.  I think that we should give him a furhter chance to expand the article to justify the chruch's notability.  I would like to see a paragraph (or more) on the history of each of the predecessor churches, dealing for example with how they were founded.  For example, I presume the baptist church is an offshoot of another local one.  The problem may be a lack of citable sources, with the result that the article will be WP:OR.  WP traditionally is not keen on the use of original documents, preferring secondary sources, but when there is nothing else, original documetns are better than nothing at all.  I expect each former church has minute books for example.  Keep for the moment, but we may need to consider AFD again in a couple of months if the article still does not prove the church's notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP, like all other encyclopedias, are not repositories for original research. WP:OR is, ahhh, sacred. Therefore, if there is no published material on the church WP cannot have an article on it.


 * Delete or merge with Sutton Coldfield, as suggested by WP:LOCAL. justinfr (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is published material in the form of newspaper articles, and on the Sutton News Website, which I have referenced on the entry. The page is a work in progress as Peterkingiron said, and will in time have a much more detailed entry. Banners Gate Community Church is the centre point of the community which serves around a thousand people. Again I can provide evidence of a great deal of wikipedia entries that are ENTIRELY unreferenced, and there is no unreferenced tag or deletion recommendation. Could someone explain to me why that is? Musicalphilosophy (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (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.