Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithful Word 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Faithful Word Baptist Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No evidence has been presented that the church is notable, other than it being on SPLC's hit hate list. I don't think it is. Actions of a church member are not relevant unless there is some evidence the church encouraged or inspired them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. a very pointy nom whose sole reason seems to be to take away a church that is listed as a hate group because the Southern Poverty Law Center is involved. I just started adding content and sources to the article when the speedy delete was replaced by the Afd. No evidence nom has even looked for sources. The death threats against the president alone are just now being added. I'll do more within a day or so. To bad this has to be a rash save job. Insomesia (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit I found it because of the SPLC "hate group" debate. There is still nothing there which justifies the inclusion other than it's on the SPLC list.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And of course the other content which you and StAnselm have deleted. Insomesia (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted no content from this article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you did, my apologies. Insomesia (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Fails GNG. Article is a WP:COATRACK, and part of an ongoing campaign to spam Wikipedia with superfluous and non-notable SPLC hate group listings.   - TALK  00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep. The hate listing alone does not confer notability. As it currently stands, the claim about the gunman is the result of an ugly, ugly, synthesis that needs to be removed immediately. Sources have now been added. StAnselm (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your concern is with what reliable sources synthesized but I have tried to word it more carefully so it's not Wikipedia making that assumption. The connection was made by many news agencies. Insomesia (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note these delete nominators have been removing the sources and content from the article rather than letting other see for themselves what newspapers have reported. Insomesia (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note the lies in that statement. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake, that is not the same as a lie, but thanks for calling someone a liar, it may inform others on the level of respect being accorded other editors here. Insomesia (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no edits which could be so interpreted by a rational person with a basic understanding of English. I've been told I have an inadequate imagination, but....  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please accept the apology and let it go. Thanks. Insomesia (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have said it was a lie. Without evidence of Insomesia's intent, that statement would be impossible to prove.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll try to be more careful. Insomesia (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. A search of the Google News archives returns numerous results about this church/organization. Being designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center in itself establishes notability, and the other sources only reinforce it. In 2009, the group's pastor gave a sermon titled "Why I Hate Barack Obama." In it, he said, "I'm not going to pray for his good, I'm going to pray he dies and goes to hell." Here's an example of the reporting on it from the Washington Post that appeared in other newspapers around the country. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am really unhappy with the way that this article is going. It looks like it wants to be an article about Steven Anderson. StAnselm (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this article is even being nominated. Anderson runs FWBC. There are more than enough reliable sources. I was the first one to do a search for news stories. I had no idea I'd find so many stories from reliable sources. I'm no fan of FWBC but I have to be impartial. The sources are definitely there to establish notability. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources all are reporting on the church who is synonymous with its pastor who founded the organization. I've left out content that seemed to be only about the pastor, specifically his arrest and trial having something to do with the border patrol, being stopped and flagged as suspicious by sniffer dogs, refusing to exit the vehicle and the charges dismissed on technicality because some agency didn't forward the veterinary reports of the sniffer dogs in time.  This feeds into the narrative of his hatred towards governmental agencies but was not part of any sermonizing as far as the sources were concerned. He also runs an anti-government blog which is reported on but was also not included. Nor is that he runs a commercial fire-alarm business from the same address as the church. Insomesia (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Added reflist below so refs added above can be seen.  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That the "church ... is synonymous with its pastor" is a conclusion; unless it's made by the sources that say what you want about (either one), it cannot be assumed or used in the article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually an organization founded and run by one man whose sermons are propagated by the church and have brought the organization national attention as a hate group is definitely seen an synonymous with its pastor. I agree that may not always be the case but it certainly is here. Insomesia (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually an organization founded and run by one man whose sermons are propagated by the church and have brought the organization national attention as a hate group is definitely seen an synonymous with its pastor. I agree that may not always be the case but it certainly is here. Insomesia (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Idiotic theology and preaching politics on the pulpit doesn't warrant a page for a minor church. KJV-only, fundamentalists churches are quite common and this isn't the worst there is - I had a church near my area say that gay people should be put in an electrified pen until they die out. Still, SPLC 'hate group' designation does not warrant a page.  Toa   Nidhiki05  02:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are lots of these churches. But this one has, for whatever reason, been reported in a lot of media.  Hence it has become notable.  --Lquilter (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

— Cluetrainwoowoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete: scattered coverage does not meet the threshold of WP:N. Apparently the SPLC designation is the church's only claim to fame.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 02:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * National news outlets like CNN, CBN, BET, Huffington Post et al disagree with your assessment. Insomesia (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has changed significantly since I nominated it.  Now it containts synthesized claims of notability.  Whether it has any chance of meeting WP:GNG after the WP:BLP violations are removed remains to be seen.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Accusations of synthesis and BLP violations are serious and I think unfounded but as stated already I'll be happy to address these concerns for which only generalized accusations have been offered. Insomesia (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Adequate sourcing showing in the footnotes, including ABC News, BET, etc. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable, plenty of reliable sources.  GregJackP   Boomer!   04:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Any SPLC-designated hate group is automatically notable just for that. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of reliable sources. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There seems to be plenty of sourcing indicating that this church has become notable for its views and controversies generated therefrom. Nomination says "[n]o evidence has been presented that the church is notable, other than it being on SPLC's [hate-group] [sic] list".  But there are a lot of sources covering the group and its views, so that doesn't really compute.  --Lquilter (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Most of the news coverage is from a single event, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT, but there are enough other sources to persuade me the article could be kept. The article also focuses on the pastor, which seems appropriate, but also means that this article is essentially a WP:BLP and must be treated with the same caution as any other biography. It might make more sense to explicitly acknowledge this and move the page to Steven L. Anderson or Steven Anderson (pastor). Pburka (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can support renaming the article to Anderson. Most of the sources are talking more about him anyway.   GregJackP   Boomer!   01:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I had thought of this but all the reliable sources report on his actions as the pastor of the church. and this business, founded by him, of course has his imprint and style all over it. Also his outrageous remarks were done as sermons or in as interviews with him as a pastor. Insomesia (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:GNG. This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. See the article for some of them. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep If you are notorious enough to earn the SPLC hate-group label, I think you are notable enough to have your own page at wikipedia.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with concern. Though the article's listed sources alone should qualify it for inclusion, I strongly disgree that being called a hate-group by the SPLC guarantees notability.  Though I am certainly not opposed to the SPLC, I don't think you can say that it's entirely unbiased - among its stated goals is the exposure of hate groups to the general public.  If Wikipedia is to be neutral, it cannot call a reference created with bias "reliable", and that reference cannot qualify a page for inclusion.   dci  &#124;  TALK   22:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, I am slightly uncomfortable with the nominator's inclusion of a stricken "hit" before "hate" when referring to the SPLC's hate group list. Indicating one's POV that way on such a matter when nominating a related article for deletion doesn't seem appropriate.   dci  &#124;  TALK   22:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion A discussion is taking place at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding this page.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please don't ever edit another person's comments. The BLP concern you raise is blunted by the fact that all that information is from what reliable sources report on the pastor. Insomesia (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. The content of the article seems to primarily be non-notable things backed up by news stories (see WP:NOT). I read "It was reported that some of the previous sermons were against policies of the presidency of Barack Obama." Really? That's unusual in the US? The main claim to notability seems to be the SPLC listing but, given the length of that list, I'm not sure that's enough. A year from now, will anyone really care about Faithful Word Baptist Church? -- 202.124.72.156 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The SPLC list of hate groups is widely distributed both in local newspapers throughout the nation, newspapers with national distribution (i.e. NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today) and over the Internet.  People will have questions about the organization -- wikipedia does have something to do with the actual readers, doesn't it -- and we should provide that information.  Mentions above of there being some sort of conspiracy promoting the existence of this article is just plain weird. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of RS mention the subject, and in more than mere passing.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A small NN church with controversial views. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- A small church with controversial views creating national discourse throughout numerous media channels, and with ample support from reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Covered in several books and numerous news reports. Notable for extreme views. Jokestress (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. It has plenty of sources and clearly has notability. By the way, size is not a criteria for inclusion; after all we have an article on the Neutrino. &mdash; MrX 22:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep SPLC listing establishes notablity and they provide sufficient information for an article. TFD (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Hmmmmm If you are notorious enough to earn the SPLC hate-group label, then you are notable enough to have your own page at Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2012 (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.