Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathway Bible Fellowship


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pathway Bible Fellowship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD'd in March by, unPROD'd by (should note the PROD also turned out to be invalid on a history review since it was PROD'd in 2014).

Basically, this is a local church that attracts local church coverage in its local area. There is no coverage that meets WP:N: "significant attention by the world at large". &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. All the sources are the San Jose Mercury News, except for the reference to PRISM, which doesn't even mention the topic at all.  No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG per the 6 references in the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:N, of which GNG is a subsection, specifically requires that subjects have garnered attention from the world at large, not simply from their local area. Unless there are sources from outside San Jose, it does not meet the notability guideline. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't have a view on this article but WP:N as far as I can see does not rule out local sources from contributing to WP:GNG and discussions on the talk page have decide against such a restriction. The exception is WP:AUD which only applies to companies and organisations but is there an exception for churches? WP:NCHURCH says that a church organisation can pass WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability requires that topics have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large (from the nutshell header for WP:N, bold by me). Local sources alone, by definition, cannot satisfy this requirement, as they do not have the broad audience or coverage required to indicate global attention. It does not rule out local sources from supporting a claim of notability, but without bolstering from sources that do indicate global attention, it carries very little weight. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and another point - all the sources in the article are from the San Jose Mercury News, and per GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. So those five SJMN articles should actually be read as one source for the purpose of assessing notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * San Jose News publishes on the internet, which means the world has access to it. Thanks to news aggregator sites and the internet, all the local news sources are global now except for the likes of The Budget which is still typeset by hand. Possibly the Wikipedia rule you are citing was from back over a decade ago when many newspapers were still largely offline--especially those in smaller communities.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What an absurd argument to make. That a publication is available on the internet does not mean that its target audience or its scope of coverage is suddenly globally significant. By your argument, the little newsletter that covers my small neighborhood in my small suburban town is a globally significant source equivalent to the New York Times so long as it is published on the internet. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has lots of topics that are niche and probably interesting only for people in a certain locale. That hasn't broken its global reach yet... it is hard to see what harm this article does.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The governing policy for whether or not to keep articles is found at WP:Notability, not WP:Does it do harm?. If we judged articles based on "well, what harm does it do?" we would be overrun with directory entries of every little local entity. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nomination and Mccapra. The article relies entirely on sourcing from a single, local news source, aside from the one article in Prism that does not even mention the subject of the article.  Searching for reliable sources outside of the San Jose Mercury News turns up nothing.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2020 (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.