Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Risen Christ


 * 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 KEEP.  Spinning Spark  18:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Church of the Risen Christ

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdw talk 06:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Question By "the organization is notable", do you mean that the parish of Church of the Risen Christ is notable (in which case, we ought to have an article about that organization, e.g., Church of the Risen Christ and Church of the Risen Christ), or do you mean that the Roman Catholic Church (the worldwide organization) is notable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, otherwise I would not have nominated it for deletion if I thought it was notable and would not have cited WP:BRANCH. Mkdw talk 05:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep printed references sufficient In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept. Nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia. Mkdw talk 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TB randley  13:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability. Church buildings or local congregations are not inherently notable, and must satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG, respectively. Every church I have been associated with has its own history of fundraising, development of ministry, activities, and building projects, the same as this one. The refs provided are not independent of the congregation, or are passing references. Edison (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Edison, no doubt, but has every church you have been associated with had a choir recording for WEA and singing at the Vatican? I don't see how the refs relating to the Risen Christ Choir (not just re. the papal visit) can be considered passing references, although inevitably the choir isn't independent of the congregation, but Billboard, the Straits Times and Singapore Times are independent. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that notability is not inherited. An otherwise non-notable church with a fine choir which was associated with it years ago does not inherit the choir's claimed notability. Choirs and college choruses have not had much success at AFD, even if they have performed before famous persons or issued LPs. How many choirs around the world have sung for a Pope or issued recordings, but do not satisfy Notability (music)? A great many, I would expect. And even if the choir satisfied notability, that notability would not be inherited by every institution they were associated with, though it should be mentioned in the articles about any such institutions which themselves satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, you mentioned that notability is not inheritable, but the fact was that the church choir was what it was described as. As in, it is the church choir and not an independent choir within the church. It only gained a separate and independent identity when it moved out of the church itself. In that case, shouldn't the notability of the choir be credited to the church itself instead? I am of the impression that since notability is not inheritable, but since it is also not temporary, then should it not be the case that the church has acquired notability as well? Pretty Pig (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Edison, I believe you are incorrect about what constitutes notability for choirs. Choirs which have issued 3 LPs with WEA would not be deleted at AfD. If you show you me where one has been then I request userfying so I can source and restore it.
 * I believe you are also incorrect to apply not inherited to an element of the church's history. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable parish. Reasonable and significant refs.  –  SJ  +  05:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Peter Low Choir and cut out most of the rest. Agree with In ictu oculi's assessment that the choir is notable but not seeing it for the church itself. J04n(talk page) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be more inclined to support a rename and change of the article topic to the choir, but you're almost looking at a fundamental rewrite at that point. Mkdw talk 23:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- I assume that a parish of 8000 refers to members/adherents/worshippers, not merely the population of the area where it is. That makes it a large congregation.  WP has no clear guidelines on what churches are (or are not) notable, except in relation to tbe building.  I am inclined to err on the side of keeping (1) size (2) LPs recorded by its choirs.  If the latter is used, then any separate article on the choir should be merged here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2013 (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.