Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainerd Baptist 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Brainerd Baptist Church

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

A church. No apparent notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Google news shows no stories pertinent to the church. Not discussed in third-party sources, so it fails WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep as a very large, long established church that has received many mentions in the News (nearly 100 unique hits in GNews), most is trivial coverage, true, but I actually think that a hundred mentions shows more notability than 2 or 3 large ones. I am currently working on improving the page with citations. Icewedge (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are also a at least a good dozen mentions in Google books . Icewedge (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing in the article (which appears to be a promotional piece) suggests to me that this church is notable. It was established in 1928, which is not exceptionally old. Broadcasting services on TV and radio is not in any way unusual. The church's very old Waterford crystal chandelier (not mentioned in the article) is possibly the most noteworthy thing about the church, but that by itself would not make the church notable. Additionally, the list of GoogleBooks hits (cited by an earlier commenter) does not include anything that would be considered "nontrivial" coverage. Also, the GoogleNews hits are the garden-variety stuff you could find for most churches: obituaries that identify the deceased as a church member or give the funeral location, listings of Sunday worship schedules, press releases about local teenagers involved in the church's youth programs, etc. --Orlady (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Orlady: note, by the way, that a hundred really trivial mentions doesn't make a church (or anything else) notable; after all, consensus has established that not all streets are notable, but I could find tons of trivial references for streets near my home from the newspaper. We need significant coverage that concentrates on the church.  Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to East Brainerd, Tennessee, assuming that is indeed where it is. This is usually the best solution for churches of only local notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea. Neither the article nor the website say the church is in East Brainerd. (They give the location as Chattanooga. "Brainerd" is a section of Chattanooga. Apparently East Brainerd is east of -- and outside -- the city limits.) --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I have listed the related article Brainerd Baptist School for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Brainerd Baptist School. Orlady (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not established. Do not merge/redirect! Not a good idea...Tavix (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't know the church (or even the country) but I would want to keep the article if it can be made into an encyclopaedic, rather than a promotional entry.   D b f i r s   09:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - in going through the google news results, all that can found are mere mentiosn of the church. If there is an article about the church, then I didn't see it.  The references in the article itself aren't reliable sources.  So at this point, there is simply no coverage that of any significance to establish notability.  -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence seems forthcoming to suggest any notability sufficient to justify inclusion per WP:N. I agree that a merge would be unwise given the uncertain location/link. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 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.