Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse


 * 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   speedy keep. per withdrawn nomination - well not that speedy since it lasted the seven-day period. JForget 22:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Sources have been added and cited, article has been changed to reflect this. - o0pandora0o (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources have been added and cited, article has been changed to reflect this. - o0pandora0o (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I can find no RS for the statements in this article, it appears to lack notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC) *Delete. per nom. Even if it is kept (which it should not be) the article needs to be stubbed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw: congrats to Cirt for excellent rewrite and sourcing. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per nominator.Off2riorob (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have proposed a new edit with RS on the discussion page. Sources are older newspaper articles that are archived on perhaps a non-RS, but articles themselves are genuine. This has been discussed at, where user Blueboar suggested: You can cite the newspaper article directly without linking to rickross.com. I can change Sources to not link to Rick Ross' site, if this is acceptable.
 * edited to add: If it is deleted, it might actually be fine, because at least then I won't have to worry about current church members coming in and engaging in editing wars, deleting all relevant information and replacing with bland, benign statements. - o0pandora0o (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep at least for the moment. The main problem has been verifying that RS newspaper reports not available online except as archives at possibly non-RS sources are actually genuine. There have been a couple of breakthroughs already, verifying a few as accurate (thus Jezhotwell's concerns about no RS sources has been answered, at least in part). If all the sources alleged are accurate (and "alleged" here means not yet confirmed, but with no established reason to doubt other than that the archiving sources are anti-cult), there are at least seven RS sources available. Deletion is premature because verifying sources cannot be done by sitting at a computer alone, but by going to find physical copies.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * comment. This is clearly a poorly cited attack article with notibility issues and is in need of stubbing as a BLP protection. There is only one editor addding anything to the article and they have a declared conflict of interest in the story. There have been no breakthroughs as Vsevolodkrolikov claims and there are no wikipedia reliable sources at all. I recommend deletion at the earliest possible convenience. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * People should go to the talkpage to find out the truth of rob's suggestion that no RS sources have been established. An editor has scanned in copies of the newspaper to show its authenticity.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The scans, yes please have a look at them, imo they are very poor as regards a reliable source, especially as they are from a person with a declared conflict of interest. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, scanners can be affected by the user's point of view.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't even read the story, never mind add comments from the scans. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish you had told me that. I will scan another article and at a larger resolution so you can see it better. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have scanned another article for you. This one is waay shorter. :) But still accurate. From "A Follower's Confession" on Rick Ross, I give you A nice large clear scan of the article. If you can't read that, please use This site to help you use Windows Magnifier to enlarge it enough to see. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Click at the top of the page here and find sources for this article, nothing! and find books, nothing! and find scholar..nothing! Whatever happened at this church, it was not widely reported and it has not continued to be reported, as such the article is not notable. There seem to have been reports in very limited sources for a limited period of time but the coverage has not continued. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE. Archived articles can be seen at and a few additionally cited at  - these are from WP:RS sources and can be verified independently of those archives, in accordance with WP:V. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no way this article satisfies notability...
 * Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
 * "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * it is quite simply a poorly cited attack article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * rob is presuming that in the ongoing confirmation of sources that nothing can be found. Given that he insists that nothing has been found despite the evidence so far provided doesn't (I'm sorry to have to say this) suggest a co-operative attitude. That an editor cannot be bothered to cross reference scans and the archived material is not an issue for wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you overly personal remarks, I won't demean myself by replying to them. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will however state my points one more time.. This article is an attack piece written by editors with a clear declared conflict of interest. It is weakly cited, even with a few scans. It is weakly notable, those are my opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are the other editors with a COI? (pandora has been very open, and has accepted all consensus).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am in the process of doing a full rewrite. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done some preliminary work (please see this version for a start) - will be back to do some more work on the article later. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More work done: (see this version). Cirt (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Oustanding base built by Cirt. Clearly there is enough there to be an article. - Sinneed (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This is interesting. British MP Alan Meale called for the group to be placed on a register of controversial religious groups and cults . Cirt (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no actual facts in this article - I live in Mansfield Woodhouse & have attended Bethel Church for over 28 years. I know the ministers and the church extremely well. Point 1 .The church was not founded by either John Hibbert or Jean Spademan. The church was here long before the before mentioned even lived in the area. Point 2. The Section on Founders therefore has no foundation to even be in the article. Jean Spademan who is deceased has never "ruled" the church & neither has John Hibbert or neither does he. The article & newspapers articles are written by people who have never put a foot into Bethel church & in a "press like way" have destorted & fabricated stories. In fact most of the people commenting on this article seem to be at the other side of the atlantic ocean and probably would not know where Mansfield Woodhouse is. Point 3. Section on England - no actual facts here again - all church members do not give 10% of their earnings, church members are not pressured into giving anything and all offerings are free will and private as in most churches Point 4. Section on Connecticut - not actual facts here again Point 5. Section on British M.P. and Analysis both are generalising on articles they have read, once again no facts

If there can't be a non-biased section on Bethel Church Mansfield Woodhouse, for example on the village history, history of the church building, what Bethel Church goers actually believe, community projects, outreaches (currently to children in Zambia) then the whole article should be deleted. Any doubters please come and see for yourself, all are welcome. [member of the church] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.31.240 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @ - Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Additional citations added serve to establish subject's notability. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Notice of this debate given at talk pages of WP:RELI, WP:CONN, WP:WPENG, and WP:NOTTM. Cirt (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per pretty convincing argument and edits by User:Cirt. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep per clean-up and Additional citations. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- but it needs to be split into two articles - one about each church. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2009 (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.