Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of All Nations AOG


 * 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) 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Church of All Nations AOG

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

— FusionYouth (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Local church of the Assemblies of God. No notability established, just a local parish going about its business. Cannot see any justification for a separate article. WWGB (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —WWGB (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). The subject if this article (the Church of All Nations) has featured in the media - namely a printed newspaper- which is referenced in the article. This source is independent of the church; the feature in the media was not written nor published by the church, and is not an ad for the church. By virtue of its business this church has had an impact, which has been reflected in the media, and is therefore worthy of notice. FusionYouth 14:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionYouth (talk • contribs)
 * Significant coverage? In the "Berwick and District Journal"? WWGB (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete no a very small article in the local paper doesn't establish notability, on that basis every church and business would probably be notable. That article is pretty much trivial coverage anyway as noted on WP:CORP * Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.-Hunting dog (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. The paper article does that and accordingly the coverage is significant. The newspaper article is not a business directory and is not simply listing a meeting time or trading hours, the article's scope ensures that its coverage is beyond trivial. FusionYouth 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionYouth (talk • contribs)
 * Comment if you look elsewhere in notability guidelines, you'll see that 'significant coverage' means things like, having a book written entirely about the subject, or being subject of televised documentary, not just short local news piece. -Hunting dog (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Response. You are referring to the notes on "significant coverage" and "sources" in the guidelines. The notes first give examples of significant sources; it states that a “360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton is trivial.” A newspaper article is not trivial… it’s not a little mention in a bio. It’s a full color feature with picture, in a real and notable paper. Granted it’s not a book, but it doesn’t have to be, and not all references in wiki are based on 360 to 528 page books.


 * In addition you also state that it also includes documentaries… the quote is in reference to good sources, namely secondary sources which include “but [are] not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.” This quote shows that newspaper articles, documentaries, and books are all considered reliable sources. The newspaper article is as good as a tv documentary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionYouth (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Regardless of the debate concerning the source of the coverage, notability guidelines do stipulate sources, plural. One article in a local paper just doesn't cut it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability has not been established. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * multiple sources are not necessary - only preferred. The number of sources can vary. FusionYouth 16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The plural is similar to saying "cows give milk"... it doesn't mean that a single cow can't give milk... just that milk comes from cows. So when it is said that notability comes from reliable sources, it is understood that a source gives notability. FusionYouth 16:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you could point to the part of the guideline explaining your interpretation, I'd be very grateful. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability - under the heading General notability guideline, beside "sources" it states that the number of sources can vary and multiple sources are only preferred. FusionYouth 23:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionYouth (talk • contribs)
 * Quite so, and the footnote to the same guideline goes on to state that "lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic". WWGB (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, with respect to User:FusionYouth, one small article in a local paper doesn't give notability (if that were the case, I would be technically eligible for an article, even though I'm most certainly non-notable in the Wikipedia sense). Just another local church with no particular notability or claims to fame at this point in time.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC).


 * Response. Wikipedia states that "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." It has already been shown that according to the definition of "significant coverage" the newspaper article is significant as it deals with the subject directly and in detail. It is reliable as it was written by a professional journalist, was approved by an editor and was published in a newspaper- it has editorial integrity. the sources is independent and is secondary. The church is notable - in the Wikipedia sense. FusionYouth 02:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply, respectfully, you are trying to push a boulder uphill. There is a clear consensus amongst established editors that a single puff piece in a local suburban newspaper does not comprise "significant coverage".  You are of course welcome to argue otherwise, but I would suggest your energies would be better directed at finding other sources to supplement the one that you have already provided, if you want to swing this discussion around.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC).


 * Delete. Nothing in this article demonstrates that the church is any more notable than countless other local churches. Further, as noted above, a single local-paper story does not equate to significant coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not asserted and appears no likely evidence of significant secondary coverage. Interestingly, the church of the same name in Carlton, Victoria appears at least historically to have been more notable.  Murtoa (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete One nice article in the local newspaper does not establish that a religious congregation is notable enough to satisfy WP:N and have a Wikipedia article. If one searched the local newspaper files carefully, almost every church would have one or more newspaper articles, unless they shun publicity. See the essay WP:CONG for the thoughts of several editors about what it takes to show that a religious congregation or its building are notable. One article is a step in the right direction, and is better than just linking to the congregation's website. Come back when the coverage is multiple and from more diverse media. Edison2 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. One local paper article is not sufficient and there's no evidence there's any notability outside the immediate area. Churches as a whole aren't notable unless their building is in some way significant (i.e. National Register of Historic Places, there's something special about the congreagation, staff or work, or something else. This does not appear to be the case here. TravellingCari  05:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. No significant secondary coverage.-- Lester  21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mynameisstanley (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley
 * Strong Delete Not notable at all.


 * 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.