Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covenant Reformed 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. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 17:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Covenant Reformed Baptist Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A notability tag has been on this article for almost 2 months but I see nothing added to the article that establishes notability. The tag was removed but I replaced it as I disagree with the argument that the articles in the local newspaper and the Biblical Recorder website are sufficient to establish notability, and further discussion on the talk page and my searches haven't turned up anything more. I note that the article's creator states that the Biblical Recorder is an independent source but I don't believe that the technical independence that he mentions makes it independent in a way that meets our criteria for independence of sources to to establish reliability. I'll add that I can't find the criteria mentioned by another editor at the talk page who writes "the the church seems to meet the Wikipedia criteria of local notability as shown by an independent RS". Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * KEEP The church in question has been covered in nine cited news articles in the local newspaper since 2008, which demonstrates its notability. The newspaper is not locally owned (it's part of a chain) and it is a well-established reliable source on community affairs. I've taken the trouble to read it. The church has also been covered in other RS. Therefore the article meets the Wiki standards. I submit that editors of long-established local newspapers are credible experts on local affairs unless evidence is presented to the contrary. Dougweller has presented zero evidence to challenge the newspaper's credibility.  Dougweller used the argument that his brother once was connected with a local newspaper somewhere else in the US which apparently was not very reliable....That's a poor argument.  Dougweller also says the place is too "miniscule" (25,000 people) to be taken seriously by Wikipedia, an even weaker argument.  He wants "major media sources" to cover the church before he will accept it--he seems to want the New York Times to provide credibility (he writes: "local newspapers aren't enough, unless the local newspaper is something like the New York Times"), but that's the weakest line of thought for an encyclopedia that tries to be inclusive. Rjensen (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment You are misrepresenting what I said. I said that local newspapers can be reliable sources for matters of fact and I am not disputing that. I didn't present evidence to challenge its credibility because that's irrelevant, we were not discussing whether it can be used as a source. I will say that local newspapers cover local events and local organisations, and the smaller the area they cover (in terms of population) the more often they cover them. That's their life's blood. As for your comment about my brother's paper, I said "It is still very hard for an editor of a local newspaper to be negative - my brother owned such a newspaper once." This is a fact. When your readers are your neighbors and friends it is very different from journalism in a larger area where most of them will be strangers (I'll add that my brother's small town was much smaller than this county of about 24,000 people). This doesn't make a newspaper not reliable, it just means that like larger newspapers commercial interests aren't irrelevant to content. A newspaper needs readers. Your comment borders on insult and was not necessary. My NYTimes comment was "Just as restaurant reviews in local newspapers aren't enough, unless the local newspaper is something like the New York Times." That was probably OTT but the point is still there, a small local newspaper covering a local restaurant in a small county a number of times doesn't make that restaurant notable enough for an article here. And I still haven't found "the Wikipedia criteria of local notability as shown by an independent RS" in guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I have carefully checked the WP:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. So far as non-commercial orgs. are concerned their scope either must be national or international or, when local, they become notable "if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area."   The evidence provided for coverage falls far short of this requirement.  The Caswell Messenger is clearly local and the Biblical Recorder, with its scattered distribution and specialist focus does not constitute substantial evidence for coverage by reliable independent sources (plural) even if it qualifies as one source, which I doubt. Jpacobb (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Dougweller, the notability tag has only been up for a few days (4 I believe). It was up for a very short time earlier and was taken down because the organization seems to meet the standard of having secondary sources published about it.

As for deletion: KEEP:
 * 1) I second all the reasons noted by Rjensen.
 * 2) The Biblical Recorder is the official publication of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina and not at all connected with the church. It is substantial and independent. Furthermore, the article in that publication was relatively lengthy, about half a newspaper leaf in size.Yeoberry (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) a notability tag was put on the article on January 23 and removed that same day because the organization, having two separate sources for published articles, seemed to meet the standard stated on the tag.
 * 2) another notability tag was placed on the article on March 9 by  Dougweller, writing, "I've restored the notability tag which was removed without discussion...".
 * 3) To that, Rjensen responded defending the article's notability on the "talk" page, including: "the editor of a local newspaper can be considered a RS on institutions in that county."
 * 4) On March 13, I wrote, "The notability tag wasn't removed without discussion. The reasons for this page meeting the notability requirements were given briefly and are still above."
 * 5) Only 5 days after placing the notability tag on it,  Dougweller nominated the article for deletion, saying "A notability tag has been on this article for almost 2 months" (above).
 * 6) A new source has been added: "Covenant marks first anniversary," Danville Register & Bee, March 8, 2009. This is the newspaper serving Danville, Virginia.
 * Owned by the same company as the Caswell Messenger. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that it is the case that the Caswell Messenger is owned by the same company as the Danville Register & Bee. Can you prove it? And how is it relevant since the two papers have different editorial staff and are thus two distinct publications. If a two publications (like Newsweek and the Washington Post) are both owned by the same company, are they then considered only one source? I doubt it.

MAJOR PROBLEM: Yeoberry (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I had thought there was something odd about someone (Dougweller) putting so much time and attention into getting a page deleted.
 * 2) I noted above that Dougweller stated a notability tag had been on the article for 2 months when, in fact, he had put it up only 5 days previous.
 * 3) Just now I ascertained that The Caswell Messenger is owned by Womack Publishing Company (http://womackpublishing.com/our_papers/) while the Danville Register and Bee is owned by World Media Enterprises, a division of Berkshire Hathaway (http://www.worldmediaenterprise.com/section/wme02).
 * 4) Why, then, above, did Dougweller state that The Caswell Messenger and The Danville Register and Bee were owned by the same company?


 * I don't know. But for the record, the Notability tag was originally placed on 23 January, and promptly removed by you (the article's creator) ; no rationale was stated in the edit summary, but you did add comments to the talk page stating that the citations were reliable sources. It would have been better to discuss the matter on the talk page, seeking consensus before removing the tag. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The notability tag gave objective criteria (articles by independent publications) which the organization meets. Having met the criteria, then notability was established and the tag was removed. I briefly made those comments. Dougweller's statement that a notability tag had been up for 2 months was simply untrue.


 * I've struck the statements I made in error - I hadn't noticed that you had removed the notability tag so quickly after it was added, without any agreement I might add. And the statement about the ownership of the two papers was meant to be a question but I didn't put the question mark on it. I'd assumed they might be because it seems a bit odd, there must be some link.
 * You know, you could have waited for me to reply before taking me to ANI. There's a little thing we call 'good faith' - see WP:AGF that asks editors not to assume people are acting from evil motives. As a Christian I would think you might behave as charitably as we ask all editors to behave. You've also stated that I have "put much time and attention into getting a page deleted". That's simply not true. This is a fairly routine thing that many, many editors do. It really doesn't take long. The most time involved actually trying to find reasons not to take the article to AfD by searching for sources that would establish notability - in other words, the most time was spent trying to find reasons to keep the article. Dougweller (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I noted, in my recitation of the chain of events, your misrepresentation of the duration of the notability tag on March 14. You made subsequent comments and never retracted your claim that it had been tagged for notability for 2 months, nor retract your nomination for deletion which you based on that false claim. You then made a further false statement (about the ownership of two newspapers) as part of your campaign.


 * So, you had a chance to respond, but choose not to until I tried to draw attention to your misrepresentations.
 * Now, you've claimed your statement about the mutual ownership of the two newspapers was intended to be a question but there is no indication of that in what you wrote. Even if they two papers were owned by the same company, that would be irrelevant and that you bring that up is odd.
 * 1) Now you've added (what can only charitably be called) another "misrepresentation". You've said (above), I "accused the other people at the AfD of somehow being involved with me". I said no such thing. I wrote (#6): "Are any of the other people who have chimed in to comment on the page's deletion associated with you?" Note the indicators of a question: (1) it begins with the verb and (2) ends with a question mark.
 * 2) You've denied giving this a lot of attention. The fact is that you have at least three paragraphs of discussion here and more in the comments about notability.
 * 3) I've not "assumed" bad faith on your part. But when you appear to obsess over a page, misrepresent (by about 7 weeks!) the duration of a notability tag you, yourself, applied; misrepresent the ownership of newspapers (that you could have looked up if you really were asking a question, and seeking to make a point that was irrelevant anyway), etc., it's no longer "assuming" bad faith but recognizing the preponderance of the facts.Yeoberry (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The notability tag was not the reason for the AfD, the reason for the AfD was the lack of notability. I asked the wrong question about the newspaper, the real question is what connection was there between the Danville newspaper and the church. As for accusing other people of being somehow involved with me, would you prefer the word suggested? A question like that is a suggestion. I'll answer it here and your talk page. I haven't informed anyone about this AfD but it is on a couple of lists of AfDs which is how people get here normally. I don't know what you mean by 'associated with you'. We're all editors, some have names that I recognise and we have participated in the same discussions. I don't know any of them outside Wikipedia. A much more important question has been asked on your talk page by another editor who (relating it to this question about my association) asked about your relationship to this church. Are you associated with it in some way? And you have no idea how quickly I think or type so no idea how long it took me to discuss the article on its talk page or raise this AfD. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ORG, purely local church with no specific notability presented. It's also extremely poorly written, reading much like a brochure and you can tell they were getting pretty desperate to figure out stuff to say about it, eventually just giving up and tossing in any ol' trivia, such as where the pastor went to school(!) and what ages of kids are allowed to use the gym(!!!).  I swear I'm not making this up, it really is all in there, to the point that it's actually comical.  Luckily they stopped before tossing in how many spaces are in the parking lot or what brand of toilet paper they use.  My absolute favourite part is the bold claim that "We don't believe in segregated churches", which would have been quite progressive in the 50s but this church has only existed since 2008! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was notable enough for this somewhat lengthy article: http://www.brnow.org/News/November-2008/%E2%80%98Reformed%E2%80%99-in-church-name-shows-Calvinism%E2%80%99s-growth. According to the notability standard originally presented, it requires two or more citations in independent publications. It's cited by three. I don't agree that it's poorly written and you gave no examples of that, instead choosing to note its description of its children's programs. Where the pastor went to school is of note as to whether and how he is educated (common in academic circles). And an integrated church in the rural South of the USA is still a novelty. The Biblical Recorder notes that it's identification as being "Reformed" is a novelty and thus notable.Yeoberry (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The chruch's scope and coverage are entirely local, thus failing WP:ORG. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the criteria originally cited for notability was that it was cited by at least two independent publications. It's cited by three. "Local" is a matter of interpretation since everything is local depending on where you draw the lines.Yeoberry (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - Indeed those guidelines are open to intepretation. Part of those guidelines advises editors to consider the "number and nature of reliable sources" which I have considered. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OWN COMMENT DELETED by me since it got caught up in an edit conflict. Jpacobb (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, with regret. Unlike Starblind, I don't find the page amusing. The citations are sufficient for WP:Verification but not for notability, as WP:ORG says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". Given the specialist scope and related-party interest of the Baptist Recorder, I don't think it counts as a regional source. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Biblical Recorder covers the whole state which I think would be "regional".Yeoberry (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Local church with no indication of the kind of notability needed to pass WP:ORG. The articles in multiple local community newspapers are not in themselves enough to establish notability. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I tried very hard to see notability here, but just couldn't find it. There's nothing noteworthy about the church, as hard as the article tries to make it appear that there is.  Media coverage per Orlady. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * to the editors of this non-local paper, it was notable enough for this somewhat lengthy article: http://www.brnow.org/News/November-2008/%E2%80%98Reformed%E2%80%99-in-church-name-shows-Calvinism%E2%80%99s-growthYeoberry (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Baptist Recorder is the "Baptist State Convention’s official news journal". It's not independent in the manner required here, since it is essentially the newsletter of the church's Home Office. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is independent in the sense required here--it is not controlled or heavily influenced by the Covenant Reformed church (there are hundreds of Baptist churches in its jurisdiction). Rjensen (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rjensen is correct. The Biblical Recorder is entirely independent of the church and the church doesn't have a "home office"; such an assertion misunderstands the relationship of the church to the denomination, which is made of "autonomous" churches. Rjensen, however, understates the number of Southern Baptist churches in North Carolina which is, according to wikipedia, 4,300. You may want to familiarize yourself with the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.Yeoberry (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but there is no sense in which an official Baptist media outlet can be "independent" of a local Baptist church, not in the way that we require independence. It's like saying that a McDonald's Corporation newsletter can be "independent" of a local McDonald's franchisee, even though the franchise is, in fact, neither owned or operated by the corporation. The commonality between the Baptist State Convention and a local Baptist church is such that one doesn't look for, or expect, unbiased, neutral, independent coverage from the one about the other. To pretend otherwise is to grossly distort the meaning of "independent". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you should familiarize yourself with Baptist policy if you are going to make recommendations based on your assumptions about it. Your comparison of McDonalds franchises to the corporation (which demands conformity) shows you don't understand the organizational structure which puts a high premium on "autonomy". Besides, with 4,300 churches to report on, does the fact that the paper wrote an article of that length about this particular one suggest anything about it's notability?Yeoberry (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete on the basis of promotionalism. This is a publicity release for the church, sourced to what are essentially other publicity releases. I can imagine no way or reusing or modify the content, as it is all about the goals and intentions of the church, not anything that might be of encyclopedic significance to other than its members or supporters, or those whom it hopes to attract as members or supporters. Saying it is notable because of the string of adjectives in its name is absurd--it's just a talking point for PR.  DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd need to show how that the two newspapers were releasing publicity statements with little or no editorial discretion. You're assuming that the papers' editors were carelessly reproducing publicity statements. Can you prove that? The purpose of requiring published sources and thus of wikipedia being a tertiary source, is that it depends on the judgement of editors in their particular field (in this case, two local newspapers and a regional religious publication). Also, why could not the church itself be of "encyclopedic significance"? If a reader wanted to know about Covenant Reformed Baptist Church, why shouldn't he be able to have an article in wikipedia informing him about it?Yeoberry (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The quick answer to your question is because the Church does not meet Wikipedia's established standards of notability. Wikipedia is not in the business of supplying information about "non-notables". It is not a directory, it is not a manual of "how-tos" ... Jpacobb (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The current sources are inadequate and better sources do not seem to be available to establish notability per WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 22:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, in the discussion about the notability, has shown that the Caswell Messenger as a source is not inadequate. That editor commented before The Danville Register and Bee was added as a source. Please see Rjensen's comments about the adequacy of a local newspaper.Yeoberry (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I read all of the other comments here before I posted my comment. Is there something else that was posted after I posted my comment that I should look at? If there is an in-depth regional or national source I missed, please point me to it. - MrX 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looking at WP:NONPROFIT, one of the criteria for a non-profit organization to be notable is that its activities should have national or international scope. This is a local church operating at a local level, so it fails that criterion. Others have already noted the lack of breadth of coverage. I agree with that: the coverage in two newspapers local to the church is not sufficiently broad coverage, and regardless of the exact polity of the NC Baptist Convention, The Biblical Recorder is not independent. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Biblical Recorder is independent.Yeoberry (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeoberry, it is not necessary, or useful to your cause, to answer every comment here, especially when you repeat the same points again and again. Please allow that commenters here will have read the previous commentary and are familiar with your opinions. Please also allow that people may have different opinions than you do, and evaluate the information differently from you, and that repetition of your viewpoint is unlikely to change anyone's mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps true for matters of opinion. That the Biblical Recorder is independent of the church is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Facts are facts and a statement that that paper is not independent is a statement of a falsehood, perhaps made in good faith but a falsehood nonetheless.Yeoberry (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeoberry, a "falsehood" is a lie, and I think it would be better if you didn't accuse other editors of lying, so please stop now before this goes too far, and you get blocked again. It would probably be best if you stop responding, because as things stand now, the article is going to be deleted, and nothing you say is going to change that at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable church, lacking in any real coverage outside the local area. Article is heavily promotional, primarily edited by one user, Yeoberry, with an apparent WP:COI and whom insists on trying to spam everyone who votes delete here, with a mixture of poor understanding of policy and borderline personal attacks (accusing people of making "a statement of a falsehood" is pretty borderline) Luke no 94  (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Every church in the land will have similar local coverage, but that doesn't make every small independent church notable, according to WP:ORG. First Light (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Please note that before voting I carefully evaluated all of Yeoberry's arguments and found them to be without merit, and I carefully evaluated the arguments of the other editors her and found them to be compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've added a COI tag to the article. Yeoberry has been asked by 2 editors about a possible COI and has simply blanked his page. I've asked him again. He created an article in 2007 about the church's pastor, with edit summaries "Description of John B. Carpenter" and "curriculum vita of Dr. John B. Carpenter" which had considerable detail but no sources. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I really, really hope Yeoberry does have a conflict of interest. One way or another, he's making this church look ridiculous and pitiful in a very public manner on the 5th most-visited website on the planet.  If he's doing this with the church's permission, then that's merely misguided and out of touch.  If he's NOT doing this with the church's permission, then that's downright evil and I hope the church finds out who he is and stops him. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. IMHO, it's a good-faith attempt by an inexperienced editor. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He's again removed my question about this. He's got a conflict of interest, I am certain about this (not just sure). Whether the congregation knows about this I have no idea. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the criteria for notability copied directly from the wikipedia guidelines:
 * Notability Criteria


 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

As for 1. check; 2. check: at least three secondary sources covering the subject; 3. check: multiple secondary sources; 4. check: while a church brochure is cited, the other sources are independent; 5. this is a matter of judgment. Yeoberry (talk) 16:47, 20 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.