Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatfield Christian 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   delete. None of the keep votes attempt to show that the church passes WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 02:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hatfield Christian Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is a WP:Vanispamcruftisment about a non-notable subject. The only sources are published by the church itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Its a church that does church stuff. I'm sure it does it very well.  They have their own website to prove it.  lots of their own at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgzP8GouhBs but nothing very watched. They have inter organisation evangelisation connections http://www.imd.co.za/site/get-involved/what-volunteer-opportunities-are-currently-available/ No added worth in the Wikipedia page yet it got 400 hits last month. Gregkaye (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or WP:TNT Evidence in the article is that this is a megachurch over 100 years old in an area not well covered in the encyclopedia, and probably represents a medium size denomination.  There is also a WP:TNT argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * CommentAs I read it, until at least 1963 it was a "run-of-the-mill" congregation in the mainstream Baptist denomination, at some unspecified point after that it joined the much smaller IFCC. But this is all beside the point that without any independent reliable sources it is simply not notable. One might expect a church of that size to feature in at least local newspapers occasionally but I've found nothing usable - so that's why I nominated it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   03:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -- An active church with a lot of members. I expect that they have a significnat profile locally, particularly in the light of the number of satellite ministries.  I am not sure that 6000 members makes this a mega-church, but that kind of membership is certainly significant.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find any news sources about this church online, zero. Willing to change my mind if somebody can rescue this. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think of what is at Google books? Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The first 5 pages of hits at Google books all seem to be good hits.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hatfield Baptist Church is an alternate search term with hits on Google books. Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Google scholar has 40 hits, FYI.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2014 (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.