Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough


 * 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. Cbrown1023 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough

 * — (View AfD)


 * Delete I have real doubt about the significance/importance of this church. It doesn't seem as though it is important enough to be listed in an encyclopedia.  It also reads like an advertisement for the church, listing everything from the address to hours of different programs. I would also make mentions about the lack of NPOV in the section Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough, but I feel that the significance and reading like an advertisement are the major reasons why I listed this for deletion. --Adam Riley Talk 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also have a problem with this statement: Care House is an expression of God's people at Good Shepherd Community Church showing God's love in practical ways to poor and oppressed in our community. It is grounded in the conviction that providing for the needy is critical to following God. --Adam Riley Talk 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an exact duplicate of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Shepherd_Community_Church_Toronto and is a Church Stub, giving information, and help to Scarbourites about this church. This is in NO WAY an advertisement, but just informational. AllanVS 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why does this page redirect to "Delete:Good Shepherd Community Church Toronto"? Diez2 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it. --Adam Riley Talk 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Park_Baptist_Church#Sunday_Services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Thomas_Anglican_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James-Bond_Church_%28Toronto%29 to name a few. By golly! They all sound like advertisements!!! AllanVS 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  STRONG KEEP I was looking to delete "Good Shepherd Community Church, Toronto" and replace with this one (Scarborough), since the legal name is "GSCC Scarborough". If this page should be deleted because of listed times etc, then EVERY OTHER CHURCH PAGE will have to be deleted. Here are some other examples:
 * Thank you for making note of High Park Baptist Church. It has since been tagged for deletion. --Adam Riley Talk 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as nonnotable. Most individual churches are not likely to be notable enough for articles. NawlinWiki 19:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I looked at the other 3 articles mentioned by AllanVS, and nominated High Park Baptist Church immediately below. The other two seem to have historical significance. NawlinWiki 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have my doubts about St. James-Bond Church (Toronto), but I do feel that St. Thomas Anglican Church has historical significance. --Adam Riley Talk 19:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not see anything in the article that satisfies the proposed guideline WP:CHURCH or other notabillity criteria, and the article lacks multiple verifiable and independent sources. Edison 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep well, if we are to follow the guidelines to the letter, then 90% of all church pages listed, should be deleted, as most of the information on them, are from internal documentations, and therefore, make each and every church listed here as 'advertisement'. Also, Althought written in third party, all articles have some form of advertisement to them.  If I look up "Coke Zero" it's because I'm interested in learning about a COMMERCIAL PRODUCT.  If someone looks up Microsoft Office, they they are looking up information, and, that is a form of advertisement.  Perhaps, people need to stop being so petty, and let a church have an informational page listed. AllanVS 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom at WP:CHURCH; I am quite comfortable with both following the guidelines to the letter and in washing out all those articles on non-notable churches. May we turn the gunsights onto elementary schools next.  RGTraynor 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certian that you're not allowed to vote twice. --Adam Riley Talk 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right. Every product does have some sort of advertising in it.  It isn't that this article is blatant advertising; if that were the case, I would have nominated it for speedy deletion.  The problem with this article is that the church is non-notable.  According to Notability (local churches and other religious congregations), in order for a church to be considered notable, there is three criteria to be met. 1) Local churches are usually notable if the scope of activities is national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. While this church may attract members from immigrant communities (which is most likely true since half of the GTA is foreign born), it is not considered national or international scale.  I doubt that more than a handful of people in Vancouver or Iqaluit are familiar with this church. 2) Individual local churches in notable denominations are not inherently notable, and do not warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability for the local church itself is established through reliable and verifiable sources. There is a link to the church website, which I will discuss in a moment. 3) Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found. There is nothing listed that it did anything non local in scope. For example, I'm not noticing that it has any national press coverage, or even that there were any abroad missionary trips (although that wouldn't count for notability, either).  You could say that the website is considered to be reliable and verifiable sources.  However, under assertions to be rejected, Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability. However, they can be used as source material for an article...[i]nternal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the church itself, or any denomination or other organisation it is part of.  Therefore, the church website doesn't count.  Even if you listed the website for Congregational Christian Churches of Canada, that wouldn't count either.  This church does not deserve to have a Wikipedia article.  I understand that you are concerned about other articles being able to exist. I suggest and invite you to take a look at Articles for deletion, where you can take a look at the criteria, and process of AdD, and invite you to even contribute by listing articles that do not meet qualifications, either. --Adam Riley Talk 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam, an AfD is not a vote, but a debate. See Wp:afd.  Alan.ca 10:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most local churches are non-notable. I see nothing here to suggest an exception. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * strong deleteAnd may we soon do the others. DGG 06:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. It's very rare that a single church amidst a particular Christian sect becomes notable unto itself, and this is an example of one that has not yet done so.  We are not a directory of churches; if you want that, you know where to find it.  --Dennisthe2 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would not want to say this of churches specifically, as contrasted with other community institutions. DGG 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Violates two out of three pillars of wikipedia. Verifiability as there are no cited sources. No original research as it must be entirely written from OR as there are NO sources. Alan.ca 10:18, 16 December 2006 (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.