Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of megachurches


 * 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 redirect to Megachurch and make use of Category:Megachurches instead (or essentially, delete) -- seems a hybrid of the delete/categorize camps, keeping history in case anybody needs this as a reference in other articles or work. Luna Santin 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

List of megachurches
Listcruft of a bunch of red links for a bunch of articles about a bunch of nn churches. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A very good and accurate list, I don't see why it shall be deleted. Unfortunately, wikipedia have very few articles on churches, thats why the links are red. Blame wikipedias lack of articles, this list is still a good one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Janibanani (talk • contribs) 10:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete, no need for this list. Most links are red and likely to stay that way. Seraphimblade 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with no criteria for inclusion (and no verification of the "claimed" numbers of attendance) it's useless. SkierRMH, 07:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 07:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many people need this list. Important information about local church life you can not find elsewhere.--RIH-V 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per policy, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages and Wikipedia is not a social networking or community-building site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yukichigai (talk • contribs) 08:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
 * It is information, not social networking or community-building. Church also is part of people's interest. Social networking means you helping somebody. Yellow pages - you give phone and directions to find. Nothing like these here, - only good start to write articles about all these megachurches what keep important place in today's life.--RIH-V 09:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:USEFUL. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We keep lists of local schools, but can't keep large influential christian organisations? Looks like losing freedom to write and read important information.--RIH-V 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only reason why we keep lists of local schools is because there is a cabal of knee-jerk keep voters when there is any attempt to remove non-notable schools. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment #1 - in response to Yukichigai, if the people can't "find elsewhere", the church would not be "notable" and therefore should not be included in this list.  And, if it's a "megachurch", wouldn't part of the definition be that there would be lots of information readily available? And in the same line as Metropolitan90, there is already a category for those that have their own articles.  #2 - Again, just doing a quick survey of numbers (the bottom #of this list in the 2000's for attendance/membership (again, it's not delineated) I could easily include 100 Catholic Churches from CA (USA) alone; multiply that by 50 states, and I've immediately added 5000 churches to this list!  SkierRMH 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, insofar as I know a "megachurch" is primarily denoted by its congregation size and/or maximum occupancy, plus one or two aesthetic considerations. (Like "is this actually a church and not just an old Costco that a congregation uses for worship?") -- Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Yukichigai above Nashville Monkey 09:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep, list has some interest and number of redlinks is not insurmountable. --Isolani 15:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERESTING is not a valid "keep" reason. Axem Titanium 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per SkierRMH, but in fairness, some of these churches are in fact notable. There is already a Category:Megachurches but there does not need to be a list along the same lines. --Metropolitan90 19:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Megachurches such as Willow Creek Community Church tend to be large, influential, and much written about, hence notable. Many of them have articles. Some with redlinks could have articles which would meet WP:CONG and which meet traditional notability and verifiability criteria. Besides, even thoughWP:POKEMON says we are supposed to ignore the fact in these discussions, we have 493 individual articles about Pokemon characters which individually lack proof of notability, and a single list of megachurches seems far more encyclopedic. Edison 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The notability of individual churches does not make a list about them notable. Axem Titanium 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it never fails to amaze me what is considered "notable" and "not notable" here. Jcuk 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have any valid argument for inclusion here. Axem Titanium 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If we can have lists of the schools is a district, we can have a list of the biggest churches in the world-Docg 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid "keep" reason. Axem Titanium 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree, this is a social and cultural phenomenon and having a list of all of them contributes to a full approach to the subject.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming there are citations that properly define "megachurch" and put each entry clearly into that category.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 23:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - sadly, the doubtless well meaning editors who have created this have misunderstood Wikipedia. All of the external links should be removed and the guideline of maximum one red link for nine blue links should be followed. In this case, probably easier to delete completely and start again. Addhoc 12:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, where is this guideline that contradicts List guideline? GRBerry 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi GRBerry, WP:MOS-L... Addhoc 00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What fun. I don't see any evidence that the contradiction has been discussed before.  By the time that Manual of Style page was first created, the development list concept was in Wikipedia:List guideline.  I'll leave this to the closing admin to sort out, but there definitely are dueling guidelines here that may need some discussion in a different forum.  GRBerry 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, to be honest I wasn't aware of List guideline and very possibly development lists were not envisaged by the authors of WP:MOS-L. Reading List guideline there is a commendably strong emphasis on sourcing - if we are to have red links they must have reliable third-party sources. Also, I didn't see anything regarding external links. Essentially, I think Zoë's nomination was based on the unsourced red links, which is still, in my opinion, a valid nomination. Addhoc 10:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, while the concept of megachurches may be notable, a list for all of them is not. Axem Titanium 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per SkierRMH Cornell Rockey 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Surely the name isn't the right one, but a list of world biggest church may be useful. I think that this list can be like the one of the tallest living persons and so one. Why not? The school's example isn't the right one in my opinion. However, in order to keep it, churches must be listed by the attendance, non the country and sources must be provided. In that case, it can, in my opinion, considered encyclopedic. Why? I said it some rows above: it would be like the list of world's biggest stadiums (which is undoubtedly useful and has every right to stay in wikipedia, as I think everybody of you will agree) or the list of world's tallest person. It has encyclopedic and historical value. But in that case only. by Snowolf (talk) on  05:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoocat (talk • contribs) Note: User's fourth edit, relocated from above page heading. Accurizer 16:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - An external link haven which would be a redlink central if they were converted to wikilinks. Wikipedia is not a link repository nor a directory.  If the numbers could be sourced, we might have something.  Without sources for the numbers, the numbers are useless, and without (verifiable) numbers, the article, as it stands, is simply an external link directory, which Wikipedia is not... I feel like I'm repeating myself. --Czj 07:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

One I added a great deal to this list by searching for third party or verified info, some were easier than others. I live in Louisville, Ky. so obviously I added a great deal to this area. That is part of the issue here consistency. Louisville, Ky. does NOT have the most mega-churches per capita ... I mean we could but I have no way of knowing that. By looking at the list it would seem that we have proportionally more mega-churches than other cities. These are issues. This is a list. Is it as important as the article "megachuches" ? No and in some ways yes. Merging this list with the article would make the article too long. However this is an interesting research tool -- if I'm correct that would be encyclopedic (in essence). What you get by looking at the list here is something that you don't get from the article. You see how diverse this cultural phenomenon is. Look at the diversity of denominations, geography, etc. you SEE more from the list than you do in the article. Admittedly I know there are a lot of "red" links in the text. But there are also a lot of external links (I know because I looked a great deal of them up). These links combined with a list create an interactive research tool that honestly exists nowhere else. You want to read about the mega churches fine here's a list including a link to their websites read for your self, see the similarities and differences. Most of these sites have an "about us" or "what we believe" section or news; any number of things that tell you more about the congregation. These links are not provided on the Hartford site. This is where you find diversity and this is where you have a tool for knowledge and research. YES this article or list needs some clean up, ok a LOT of clean up. I'd argue format first and foremost, along with set criterion and verifiability. The challenge is the list is growing and it's hard to verify them all. I mean some churches don't boast about their attendance you only find it buried in the church newsletter on the website. I think a solution would be a lock on the page. This would prevent someone just posting their church for recognition and in order to be added it has to go through the discuss page and meet a set format. I'd be happy (if I can be given a week or so) to go through and make the list uniform in format and I'll even research out the list as I go. I’m willing to step up and do it if and when something is decided. Format I think would work … Southeast Christian Church - Louisville - Dave Stone [66] [Attendance: 19,100]
 * Keep per Dmz5, the sociological impact of megachurches, especially as it pertains to community growth and social involvement, leads me to think this oughts be kept. While I would not want to have to "redefine" the term megachurch according to numerical value, I would recommend limiting the list to churches over, say, 5000 in attendance, due to the theory that large churches get larger all the time. --Avery W. Krouse 13:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep but modify AND limit.

Church name linked to internal site if none external – location – congregational leader – extrenal link if an internal article exists – attendance

This gives a source a set criteria (attendance avg weekly) and consistency. List by state or country and by church alphabeticly.

But I seriously think we need to keep this. Deletion gets rid of something that could be useful even if only to a small group, it is a research tool. Sorry for the length here but I kind of feel strongly about this. Thanks. M-BMor 08:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep a useful development list (List guideline, third type) and cleanup by eliminating the external links, because Wikipedia is not a directory of weblinks. Many/most megachurches are in fact notable by WP:NOTE standards - big things get talked and written about.  GRBerry 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Categorize ... put any articles we have on specific churches into a category, then the external link farm that calls itself List of megachurches is moot and can be deleted.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unfortunately a category is not an appropriate choice in an instance like this where many of the entries are red links. The external links aren't needed, however; red links would be more appropriate to encourage creation of the articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and categorise -- fails WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles are not... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" and "Wikipedia articles are not... Mere collections of external links." There's absolutely no WP content here beside the church name. If it's not a redlink, categorise it, since that's what categories are for. Do that and then wipe the page and you won't have lost a single byte of actual information. PS if "the information is not available elsewhere" then it shouldn't be here, since it'll fail WP:V by default. --DeLarge 17:33, 23 January 2007 (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.