Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonesville Church of God sign controversy


 * 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. WP:NOT, this is clearly a trivial news story that will be forgotten soon. Black Kite 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Jonesville Church of God sign controversy

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

This is a news report about a message put on a church sign for one week or so. It did get some media attention. But there is no evidence of lasting importance, or any real controversy. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It's a minor incident, but it does seem to meet the main criterion at Notability: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, adequate press coverage to warrant an article. Everyking (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (as it may warrant inclusion, but not its own stub article), then Delete, and Transwiki to WikiNews per WP:NOT. MrPrada (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Transwiki to WikiNews is not possible. They use a Creative Commons license which at this time is incompatible with the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you learn something new every day (especially on Wikipedia). In that case, delete, with possible unrelated rewrite at WikiNews. MrPrada (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NOT. This doesn't seem to be even worth a sentance in the Obama campaign article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, there is nothing relevant in the link you posted. Cryptographic hash (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is very relevant. You might also want to reread NOT#Original Research. Right now, the article is just a smear on the church, with rampant OR and synthesis and no references in the article. It does not even mention the church's explanation for the sign. MrPrada (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is strictly a very minor news story. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Yes, it slightly meets notability criteria, but it doesn't seem much more than trivial coverage.  Grsz  talk  18:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, barely registered on the national radar. Isn't the Osama/Obama thing pretty old by now? --Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a relevant argument. Cryptographic hash (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think a sentence in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 is a good idea. That article already has a section on the various slurs and rumors against Senator Obama that have taken place. If people want to know more they can click on the refs that would be given. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's referenced and keeping it is not hurting wikipedia in any way. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that its articles about little things such as this that sets us apart from other sources. Acer (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as well presented article with sufficient sourcing; citing newspapers does not make someone or something citing the newspapers also a newspaper. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a newspaper article dressed up as a encyclopedia entry.  Way too thin a gruel to warrant an entire article, which grotesquely exaggerates the significance of this insignificant "controversy". Quale (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is something that will be lost and forgotten relatively quickly. Rev. Melber (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)RevMelber
 * Sure it will be, if the article is deleted. But imagine historians combing through Wikipedia 500 years from now.  What a fascinating window this will provide them. Cryptographic hash (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case it might be better to mention the incident in the Obama campaign article. How is someone going to find this one among the millions of others? Steve Dufour (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - it meets Wikipedia's written standard for inclusion - what more is needed? It was covered in both national print and television.  Why was it important enough to be covered nationally?  Because it points to something bigger--as the article mentions, "The sign message brought national attention because it was seen as an indication of rural American white ignorance and unconscious racism in the Southern United States" in the current day.  That's important, not trivial. Cryptographic hash (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that these are important topics. I might add "Racial segregation in American Christianity" if we don't have an article on that already. However, the fact that this article points to those topics is not enough to keep it since WP has a policy against every passing news story being the topic of an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. It meets Wikinews' standards for inclusion. On wikipedia, it would be acceptable as a part of an article on the Church, if the church itself were notable. However, it is not. It would be borderline as a subsection of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 piece, but certainly does not warrant a content fork daughter article. 01:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Obama campaign article already has a section on negative rumors and slurs, so a sentence on this (cited of course) would fit in fine. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Trivial news story. TheslB (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was about to close this one now, but after reviewing it, I think that a close based on my opinion might be controversial, so I'll instead enter my opinion as a regular, and let someone else decide. There are clearly good faith calls here for keeping the article, but I feel that they don't take into account the main concern: that this article is of a relatively minor news story, and that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Of course, Wikipedia does cover some news events, those which are of major significance, affected a lot of lives, received widespread, long-lasting and world-wide attention, or which have an enduring impact on society. In this case I cannot see any of the usual reasons for covering an event in an encyclopedia are in place. It is largely about a sermon in a local church, and it is not a major part of the presidential campaign. The attention here seems to have spanned over about a week, and there doesn't seem to be much impact in the aftermath. Pretty much the only impact on the religious community was the central Church of God distancing itself from the sign. The keep votes are not unreasonable in pointing out that the article is well-referenced, but I find them unconvincing since news stories by definition have references in the form of news articles, so that does not seem to be a reasonable bar for deciding if a news story is encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use the phrase "distanced themselves from" to describe the denomination's reactions. They were never close so no need to create distance. They just informed us of their church policies. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This looks like a minor incident within the campaign. At most deserves a line or two in the main article. - Nabla (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with the Obama campaign article. Like the hostage crisis at Clinton's HQ office a few months ago, it's just a news item that came and went. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Eight day wonder on Day #10. Wikipedia is not an online newspaper. This didn't even make it to tempest in a teapot status. B.Wind (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge 2-3 sentences to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and redirect, per Bearian. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Might have been titled the "Osama-Obama Sign".  This story is clearly more than a "short burst of news reports" (WP:N), as it generated extensive commentary.  The commentary demonstrates notability.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see evidence of any "extensive commentary." Everyone seems to agree that the message was stupid, and inappropriate for a church sign. I'm sure Senators Clinton and McCain think so, as does the church headquarters which seem to have ordered it to come down. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete news story, pure and simple. Feel free to mention with a sentence or two in the relative campaign article. --Rividian (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I added a couple of sentences, and a picture (that might not last), in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 Steve Dufour (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2008 (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.