Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Christian Center 2nd nomination


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 03:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Family Christian Center

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable church. Article was previously nominated in December 2006 (Articles for deletion/Family Christian Center) when it was kept, based on the claims that it had been featured in "notable media" (except the only URL provided was for a Northwest Indiana local website which contained a brief article that was little more than an advertizing write-up, and nwi.com is not "notable media"). I don't see multiple, non-trivial references to this place.

The other reason was that we should "give the stub its time" even though it was 4 months old. Well now it's nearly 7 months, the stub has been given enough time and it is still less than 20 words long. Time to delete it. Saikokira 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable, and I don't think this stub will ever be expanded.  I also noticed that the article for the pastor of this church, Steve Munsey, appears to be a non-notable stub and probably should also be nominated for deletion. SkipSmith 05:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no progress, recentism made this appear more notable than it really is.  /Blaxthos 09:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - you might want to nominate the pastor of this church's article as well.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Does anyone actually do research whilke they are "waiting" for an article to grow?? I found 2 Wall Street journal references and one in Time magazine in 5 minutes. I expeect that papers in the state where it is located would have ample coverage to write a longer article. Edison 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:CHURCH (which despite rejection is still a help), and is sourced and has notability as a megachurch. JRG 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not particularly helpful. WP:N handles this ably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As AMIB says; perhaps it's time to stop beating that particular dead horse. At any rate, delete as nn, since article has no encyclopedic content.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The 2 "references" added to the article after I nominated it are to print publications, are these available anywhere online? It would be useful to be able to confirm them, and to ensure these are not just passing references to the Center. If these references were so easy to find it would have been helpful to have added them after the previous AfD nomination, to address the earlier questions of notability. Saikokira 04:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep To quote from the article, "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" Cloveoil 14:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the first citation (Time) is of an article describing how they installed a Starbuck's in the church lobby. It's an odd form of notability and not one I'd care to claim, but it may work. I'm agnostic for now. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Although the references are weak, it seems to be noticed and with further research adequate references should be findable. Tag for references. --Kevin Murray 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs to be greatly expanded, however. Notability is not equal to "number of links on the Internet," and that was an odd argument for deletion. Links to other Websites is not a WP policy requirement in confering notability, AFAIK. A paragraph on the Starbucks is warranted, and clearly gives this church notability (and "notoriety" which I suspect is what some mean when they say "notability") since this is a rare and controversial phenomenon. - Nhprman 19:15, 15 March 2007 (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.