Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch the Fire Toronto


 * 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Catch the Fire Toronto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It looks like an advertising page; the references are of unclear reliability and trustworthiness; there is no encyclopedic value Geocapital (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete There is only a single significant reference to this church in a reliable source (Christianity Today) from more than 20 years ago (1994). Jrheller1 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: historically significant as the birthplace of the Toronto Blessing. I don't know how having a source from more than 20 years ago is a delete argument - in fact, it means it is very likely that there are print sources not online. StAnselm (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete As said there is little support or good references for it. Add/merge a small part to the Toronto Blessing piece but thats all that is really note worthy. ContentEditman (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as the venue for the highly notable Toronto Blessing, the church was certainly notable then; and notability is not temporary. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Highly notable" is a stretch for the Toronto Blessing. The Toronto Blessing was a '90s fad experienced by a few thousand people.  The Macarena was a much more significant '90s fad (experienced by millions of people), but we don't need an article about the birth place of the Macarena. Jrheller1 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Toronto Blessing was certainly a 90's fad, but experienced by millions, not "a few thousand". And even a cursory glance at Google Scholar, for example, reveals that yes, it's "highly notable". StAnselm (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the "millions" from? According to the article, the size of the congregation was only 1000.  Obviously, there are millions of Pentecostals throughout the world who claim to experience similar things, but not in the context of the "Toronto Blessing". Jrheller1 (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * From Toronto Blessing: At the time of the revival, Dr. James Beverley, a critic of the Toronto Blessing and a professor at Toronto-based Tyndale Seminary, stated that these events were a "mixed blessing" but was later quoted in 2014 as saying "Whatever the weaknesses are, they are more than compensated for by thousands and thousands of people having had tremendous encounters with God, receiving inner healings, and being renewed." So according to Beverley, "thousands and thousands" experienced the "Toronto Blessing", not "millions". Jrheller1 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "To date, around two million visitors or "pilgrims" have journeyed to Toronto to experience the Blessing for themselves." StAnselm (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The author of that book section just states the number two million without any proof. As a seminary professor who lives in Toronto, Beverley is a more reliable source.  For two million people to have visited the church, there would have needed to be 1000 different people at the church every day for almost five and a half years.  Even if there were two million unique visitors, the Macarena is still far more significant (with more than 11 million copies sold and far more than 11 million listeners or participants).  Jrheller1 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: The subject really does pass WP:GNG quite easily. Although the coverage is closely connected to the Toronto Blessing, there is lots about how the church coped with it, and relationships to other churches: see, for example, this entry in the Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism as well as this book. StAnselm (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the church became notable in the 1990s due to the Toronto Blessing, and remains one of the best-known and influential churches in the global charismatic movement. It therefore has a status of its own and requires a separate article. I am sure it would be straightforward to find numerous references to it in reliable sources. SmilingFace (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing enough independents sources to verify notability. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This debate are evidence of our endemic problem with presentism and paywalls. I ran a quick proquest news archive (paywalled) search on "Toronto Airport Vineyard" and up came many, in-depth articles about this church.  I added the first one as a source, it is about the split from the Vineyard denomination.  and is in the Ottawa Citizen, a non-local big-city daily.  There was lots more, certaily enough to create a good article.  The catch is that much of the in-depth coverage was back in the 90s - only 20 years ago but its paywalled.  So editors like Doc James (above) and the Nom are not seeing it.  This is a huge problem for us.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I support the argument made by others above that this church is notable as the historic origin of the Toronto Blessing, which was a significant part of the history of Charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity in the 1990s. SJK (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2017 (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.