Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Church Kogarah


 * 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   Even face-value consensus is in favour of Delete. And from the style of the three 'keep' comments, all single-purpose accounts, it is clear that they are all by the same person. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Grace Church Kogarah

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:ORG Google news search only finds 3 articles on a church in a different location. and mainly directory searches and mirrored articles in Google search. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have been unable to find any reliable source coverage --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ORG, no independent reliable sources. Content like "God has graciously called a diverse group of people to faith in Jesus Christ" is unencyclopedic. WWGB (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * just a bit of WP:FANCRUFT. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - NN congregation, NN building, no evidence otherwise. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Kogarah, New South Wales -- This is usually the best solution for local churches, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, fails WP:ORG. (And lol re WWGB - I used to belong to a church of this general type and would probably not have even blinked at such an odd turn of phrase back then.) Orderinchaos 20:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable. While some aspects of the article can be amended to convey a more neutral viewpoint, there are some aspects of Grace Church Kogarah that suggest notability.  It is the largest multicultural protestant or charismatic church in the area with approximately 500 members.  It is arguably unique in Sydney having a night service in a different language.  And quite simply, if Grace Church Kogarah is not considered as notable, you'd have to go around deleting over half of the articles that are to do with churches.  Best not to set a precedent in that regard eh? 60.242.181.27 (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC) — 60.242.181.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * you're basically inventing criterion for WP:ORG which this church fails. and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. and simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is also not valid. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable. To prove notability, Grace Church Kogarah is negotiating to have a feature article in Australia's most widely distributed community newspaper, the Leader.  The article will be on the appointment of a new pastor (Albert Garlando) to Grace Church.  I ask that the article be kept pending this, and a hyperlink will be put on in the not too distant future. 203.31.52.131 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.52.137 (talk)
 * no it needs significant wide coverage, not just the Leader newspaper. To prove notability, Grace Church Kogarah is negotiating to have a feature article in Australia's most widely distributed community newspaper, the Leader. we don't ask newspapers to publish articles so it can have a WP article. that is ridiculous. in fact your comment is a full admission that the article subject lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG.LibStar (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * and as I have stated above, the Leader is the most widely circulated community newspaper in Australia. That to me signifies significant wide coverage. I sense some non-neutrality in your statement in fact your comment is a full admission that the article subject lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG as Grace Church Kogarah already has notability, only that it needs to show what it already has. 203.31.52.131 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.52.137 (talk)
 * no it does not have notability. if it did everyone would be voting keep here. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * furthermore you are mistaken on significant coverage does not mean covering it once in a significant media outlet (eg 1 mention in New York Times does not automatically make something notable). LibStar (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable. While not immediately verifiable through something such as Google News, Grace Church Kogarah is notable for being one of the largest multicultural Protestant or Charismatic churches in Sydney.  Similarly to the above, deleting this article sets a dangerous precedent to delete other churches, the vast majority of which have a lower attendance or membership. Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be used here, as that is not automatically a dud argument (see the article) and have been shown to be valid arguments for doing so in this case.122.258.156.9 (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.258.156.9 (talk) — 122.258.156.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment to closing admin. Please note that 3 single purpose editors have visited here...I suspect more may appear. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks independent, reliable third-party sources, and agree that "negotiating" to gain coverage in suburban papers won't advance notability one iota. Murtoa (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonnotable. Recreation later if notability is established is always an option. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, contrary to above claims, numbers and multiculturalism don't confer notability. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2009 (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.