Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Assembly of God


 * 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 no consensus, WP:NPASR. Deryck C. 16:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Grace Assembly of God

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:CSD. This article is about a non-notable worship centre. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Seems like advertisement to me. Relevant Policies and Guidelines:
 * 1) WP:LOTSOFSOURCES ← Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions.
 * 2) WP:NOTABILITY
 * 3) WP:VERIFIABILITY Mrt3366   (Talk?)   14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. 17:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 17:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Definitely seems to qualify as a "mega-church" -- staff of 63, 4000 attending on a weekend, 13 services per weekend. Not sure where wikipedia is on these kinds of things.  Obviously small run-of-the-mill churches don't qualify, but at some level, I would expect to see an article on large churches.  How large is the question -- 3k? 5k? 10k?  I'm not sure. --Lquilter (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of size, according to notability criterion an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Notability is neither inherent nor inherited. I tried but could not find independent reliable secondary sources (in English). Mrt3366   (Talk?)   10:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, size is definitely relevant (see WP:NONPROFIT) but we need sources regardless, of course. However, the church is in Singapore, so I imagine we might try to seek someone able to look in the relevant non-English sources.  Unless I missed it and you were able to do that? --Lquilter (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't search non-English sources. But I understand that it's important. Let's see if someone comes up with an independent reliable source. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   13:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment -- if the content is true, this must be a significnat church. However, it may not be an English-medium church, and accordingly, a dearth of English language sources would not be unexpected.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:13, 22 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.