Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of International Churches of Christ Congregations


 * 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. --Ezeu 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

List of International Churches of Christ Congregations
This list serves no encyclopedic purpose except to advertise the locations of churches within a certain denomination. Wikipedia is not a church directory. The end of the article is also a massive external linkfarm. Sally Anne 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see no difference between this list and List of open source games.  There are millions of games in the world, and the list is a specific collection of the ones that are open source.  There are millions of churches in the world, and the list is a specific collection of the ones that are ICOC. Under Purpose of lists on List guideline, it specifies that a list may be one of information, a "valuable information source."  This is.  There is no where on the web currently keeping an up to date list of the ICOC churches, and the last one (at icocinfo.org) shut down recently.  There is no attempt made to advertise specific locations (no address, phone numbers, etc) are included, just information.  RE the "linkfarm", I have advocated in the past that the links at the bottom be merged in with the list (i.e. have church name, website link in one line).  It's a big job though and no one has done it yet.  The links should definately be here--I mean, if someone is looking for the Toronto Church of Christ website, and they get here, why make them google it?  Overall, I think this is a great resource to have on Wikipedia. Rob 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of links, but that's what this article is. Many religious denominations maintain their own web sites which have directories of all their congregations. The fact that the ICOC has failed to do so does not mean that Wikipedia ought to do that for them; Wikipedia is not a free web host, either. --Metropolitan90 17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What you referenced, is exactly what this list is NOT.
 * 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). (It is NOT this.  The church locations are strongly associated.)
 * 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. (It is not this. There are no addresses, no phone numbers, no contact information short of the website.
 * 3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. (Again, not this. While it might fit the definition of a "directory", the heart of this policy is to avoid people creating a business website on Wikipedia.
 * With respect to being a "repository of links", Wikipedia again says:
 * 1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. (Not this.  Again, the heart behind this policy is to avoid tons of external links to opinion sites, and unofficial sites.  In an organization where there are many OFFICIAL sites, I believe this is totally fine.  For example, see List of MMORPGs.  Just a list of games, but a link to each one's wikipedia entry; one type, many different non-opinion sites.  Also, see List of combinatorics topics.  If you want to say anything about the list in question, say we should get rid of the external links, and work on making wikipedia articles for each of the different churches, maybe with a history (planting date, growth rates, news stories about it in particular, etc) and include the website link there.  Though I do think this would lead to a lot of new articles, a good number of them could include some good information for people wanting to know about the church they attend, or are thinking of attending. Rob 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I must agree with Metropolitan90. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I couldn't even find a link to an article on the church. My suggestion was going to be for the church to create their own regional lists, and perhaps then give some information for each area with perhaps a dozen at most links to their own web sites. Obviously the name would be different--Mike 18:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  I absolutely agree with the earlier comment: I see no difference between this list and List of open source games.  And when the latter gets nominated I will vote for deletion there as well.  Emeraude 18:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And I see that you are so convinced of your position that you have gone and nominated the article yourself. Good job putting your money where your mouth is. We need more people like you who don't just sit back and release judgements but actually get their hands dirty and do some work. Suoerh2 09:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that sarcasm or a serious contribution to debate? Emeraude 17:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think this is a useful list that expands the parent article.  Whether the user is looking for a church or researching cult activity this list "provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject." Lists in Wikipedia.  This is a controversial organization and a list of the affiliated churches is definitely useful for a person who is approached to join. This qualifies as a "valuable information source." List guideline Crgrier 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC) — crgrier (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. I agree with Crgrier. --TransylvanianKarl 09:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Metropolitan90. Deli nk 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The parent article is International Churches of Christ, which was also known as the Boston Movement. (While I am from Boston, I have no affiliation with that movement.)  That was definitely a notable movement within Protestant Christianity.  The list needed an introduction that would wikilink to the parent.  The "External Links" section of the needed to go.  Per sofixit, I've done both.  This list is organized and maintained in a way that a category could not replicate, so meets the guideline on lists that Crgrier linked to above.  It is still unreferenced, so I added the appropriate tag.  I believe it is verifiable, based on the many links in the parent article, so am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt on verifiability for the time being.  GRBerry 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. What makes this different than List of Dramas on DVD? Arbusto 09:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory; lists in Wikipedia are (or should be) lists of notable things, not of non-notable things. Brianyoumans 14:06, 1 November 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.