Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College 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   keep. joe deckertalk to me 04:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

College Church

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * SeeI.Casaubon (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Local church with no indication of importance. Makes for amusing reading but not sourced and seems unlikely to be able to source. BelloWello (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The church looks pretty notable to me.  A quick google establishes that it was founded as and long continued to be the church attended by the faculty of Wheaton College, arguably America's premier Christian college.   I'll add some sources, but the 675 results in a search of google books look pretty substantive.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm all for deleting articles of non-notable churches, but this has been listed in the top 50 influential churches - clearly not an ordinary church. The article still needs some work, of course. StAnselm (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who listed it as a top 50 influential church? I didn't realize that a passing, one-time mention in a list on the website of a non-notable magazine established notability. BelloWello (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Several new inline citations have been added, including some that are entirely independent of the church web site. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing administrator.  I know that this article needs further work, but I am troubled by the nature of the nomination.  The nom asserts that this is a "Local church with no indication of importance."  When he wrote the=is AFD, the second sentence of the article read: "In 2006, College Church was listed as being the 37th most influential non-catholic church in America by "The Church Report".[2]"  And a quick google instantly establishes that this is a large, influential church.   I believe that there ought to be some constraint on editors starting AFD's without doing a brief good-faith search on google.  Or perhaps a means of red-flagging editors who do so repeatedly.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Accusations of bad faith are incivil. Please strike. BelloWello (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not bad faith, Error. You happened on an article that was poorly sourced to the churches own web page only.  You erroneously assumed that it was not a notable church although notability that is easily verified with a simple search.  You stated that there was no assertion of notability in the article although there was a sourced assertion that it is one of the top fifty non-Catholic churches in America.   That is not evidence of bad faith, merely of carelessness.   I understand mistakes.  I make them myself ;-).  What I do not understand is your battfleid mentality after the notability of the church has been established using reliable sources.   This is a big deal church at Wheaton College (Illinois), for heavens sake.   Why not just admit that you made a mistake - maybe you were working too fst on too many AFD's or something - and withdraw your nomination and move on?I.Casaubon (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to show examples of those notable, secondary sources covering the church. So far all I've seen is an unnotable church magazine's website. Otherwise, you can claim anything you want and it won't make any fucking difference for me. BelloWello (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Foul language is inappropriate.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: little in the way of third-party coverage. "the church attended by the faculty of Wheaton College" = a WP:INHERITED argument, and thus invalid. The "top 50" rating is not from a prominent source (in fact essentially a WP:SPS, as far as I can tell), and I have concerns about their sampling methodology (seems highly biased towards megachurches -- which would tend to have a similar ideology, conservative 'non-denominational', as this one). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an aggressive, unpleasant undertone tone in the efforts to delete this article, and, in particular, in the assertions that this well-known church lacks reliable third-parts citations being made by editors who cannot have done good faith searches on variants of the church's name or they could not make such assertions.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then you would be better off proving it by introducing such material into the article, rather than violating WP:AGF by attacking those who disagree with you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * AFD discussions are about whether the subject of the article is notable. They are not about whether or not the sources in the article as written are sufficient.   You are wrong and inappropriately contentious in voting to take an article down on the basis of currently inadequate sourcing.  Editors entering an AFD discussion are responsible for determining whether the topic is WP:notable. They are not responsible for adequately sourcing poorly-sourced articles on notable topics.  Like the College Church.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "AFD discussions are about" WP:Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". "They are not about" violating WP:AGF by making ad hominem attacks on editors who disagree with you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Assertions such as "amusing reading but not sourced and seems unlikely to be able to source", ''Local church with no indication of importance" and "little in the way of third-party coverage" are simply untrue.  They have a mocking antagonistic tone.  And they are misleading to editors coming to this page who expect us to be able to back up the statements we make here.   We all make mistakes.  What I object to is editors who make untrue statements and allow them to stand even after sources are added and the notability of a source is pointed out.  I do not understand wht these editors are about, but it appears to me to be something other than the objectively asessed notability of this church.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) Your claim that they "are simply untrue" is an argument by assertion. (ii) There is nothing "mocking antagonistic" about stating "little in the way of third-party coverage" (whether you agree with it or not) -- it is DIRECTLY addressing WP:GNG criteria. -- so kindly Comment on content, not on the contributors. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Speak respectfully, please. The Nom opened this AFD on a large, well-established congregation with the remark "(delete this shit!)".  Elsewhere  he votes to delete an article on a church with the remark "nothing about this church makes it any more notable than the 5000 member baptist church down the road from my house that I am forced to see every sunday."  He appears to be unable to leave his emotions outside when he enters AFD discussions.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the same discussion on the Carey Baptist Church you refer to, you left this comment, Casaubon:
 * What makes a congregation WP:notable? Having a recent pastor who is WP:notable. Being a large enough church to support two pastors. Being housed in an architecturally notable building. Supporting missionaries in India. The fact that a missionary they sponsor was among the many Christian missionaries in recent years arrested on trmped-up charges in a country where many people resent Christian missionaries? The hiring or departure of a pastor meriting an article in the local paper. I believe that any or all of these add up to WP:notability for a congregation.
 * I will be happy to answer that for you. None of that makes a church notable. A church attains notability by meeting the notability requirements, which require multiple substantial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Neither this church, or the other, has attained that level. Oh, and I can use whatever language I would like, thank you. BelloWello (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This book has some decent coverage of the church. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The book is published by Moody Publishing, related to Dwight L. Moody whose records are now housed by Wheaton College (Illinois), among other connections. There is too close a connection between the two for me to consider that substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I would also question the reliability of a book published by a non-scholatic publisher, written by a pastor and sports journalist on churches... I don't see anything in their qualifications to do that. Finally, the book provides mini-profiles of MANY, many churches, some of which are very small and certainly not notable. In short, I can see using the book to add background information about a notable subject, I cannot see using the book to establish notability, but maybe other editors will see differently. BelloWello (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While they certainly hold to very similar ideologies, I think that Moody and Wheaton are organizationally independent. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True. And College Church is  independent from both of them and, despite its name, is not affiliated with the college.   Three Christian institutions can be in the same town and agree on matters of faith while retaining independence.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Between the book and mentioned above and a few news articles that I found on Google News Archive, I think this is enough to satisfy WP:ORG.  Qrsdogg (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * sources I have added a great deal of material form reliable secondary sources. There is a great deal more that I or other can add, given time.  I hope any editors coming to this page will consider the article as it now stands.  Even though WP:N shold not depend on the current quality of th page, but only on the inherent notability of the subject.  p.s. that Jean Driscoll raced in this Church's local, annual fundraiser/race to support its disability ministry is cool.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources that have been added. Given the condition of the article when its AFD was started, I can see the nomination as reasonable, but there's no reason to continue to advocate deletion now.  Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Google book search proves notability. Historical encyclopedia of Illinois, Volume 2 By Newton Bateman, Paul Selby covers it on page 687.   D r e a m Focus  10:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources do not meet the Five tenants of WP:Notability. Following I list the key citations and state their violation in order of the use by above editors to justify keep votes: FIRST 50 most influential church list was put out by The Church Report. This site is a push advertiser. Their own 'about' page identifies their advertisement mission. They purposefully do not identify as a news source or polling source because they are not. The Church Relevance site which is cited on this article as the source of the list (which it is not) is a blog by Kent Shaffer for his company. To conclude, no editorial integrity means it violates Reliable; SECOND The Historical Encyclopedia of Illinois provides a list and description of 12 churches in Wheaten with no special notice given to College Church over the others mentioned. The Encyclopedia provides similar lists for other towns in DuPage. This citation violates Significant coverage; THIRD No other reference provides a Reliable source with Significant coverage. The Reliable sources cited (i.e., Chicago Trib, Daily Harold, Aurora Daily Star, Christianity Today & Chauncey Park Press) all are articles predominantly about other subjects where the College Church is only mentioned in passing. None of them constitute Significant coverage. I suggest editors address the above problems before suggesting this article meets WP:Notability. Dkriegls (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Historical Encyclopedia of Illinois wouldn't include anything that wasn't notable. The coverage seems significant enough to me.  There is no actual rule stating how many words are needed to be considered significant.  This isn't just some token mention, but them listing the history of it as well.   D r e a m Focus  19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedia lists and describes the "Banking Interests" and "Public Utilities" of each DuPage town in equal coverage as it gives the church. While I agree that a specific word count is not criterion for significance (nor should it be), mention in the Historical Encyclopedia is not grounds for notability alone. Unless you argue that the public utilities meet WP:Notability? The coverage of this church is no more than any other in the encyclopedia thus highlighting the "non-uniqueness" of its origins. Lots of churches have written founding histories and notable preachers and popular charity events, that doesn't make the church itself notable. This church at best requires greater mention in the Wheaten College's page, but I have not yet seen an citation that justifies it's own page.


 * Keep I added more refs.  Google also has a place page for the church, which I added.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In what world does a Google Place Page prove notability?  b  W  17:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * People can't note a topic if they can't identify it, the ten other sources added should help "prove notability". Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Nominator BelloWello has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. Is this AfD still valid? OCNative (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment link provided by nominator is dead. And I see no reason for deletion Bulwersator (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a well known and long established Evangelical church, associated with a very well known Christian college, and now the article has several new sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2011 (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.