Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quest Community 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. Michig (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Quest Community Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable church lacking non-notable support. red dogsix (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speedy A7 was declined by another ed.  as out of scope. Church buildings are out of scope, but church organizations are not. Sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference, but this  is unambiguously an article about the association. In any case it can and should be dleted as Speedy G11.  DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence provided that there is a lack of sources (an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).  A book source in the article shows that weekend attendance in 2007 was 1700.  Given the rapid early growth of the church, this puts it on a trendline to currently be a megachurch without any additional research.  1700 is by itself large enough to be mentioned in a more comprehensive article and retention as a redirect.  This puts any remaining discussion in the category of talk page discussion, not AfD discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not sure I understand your comment. There is no evidence of Notability.  Lack of support is not a reason to keep an article.  I did mention that the church lacks support, not the article.  The author has the WP:BURDEN to support provide support for the article.  The only articles (support) out there are related to the resigning of the founder because of an affair and the firing of half the staff because of financial diifculities.  Hardly enough to support for inclusion into Wikipedia.   red dogsix (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what good this is going to do, but... (1) We appreciate our content contributors.  (2) Articles are created with an assumption of good faith, WP:AGF, which as a behavioral guideline is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow,".  (3) WP:BURDEN is a content policy.  (4) WP:Notability is a topic guideline, not a content guideline.  (5) WP:BURDEN has nothing to do with wp:notability.  (6) Megachurches (2000 weekend attendance) are presumed to be notable, and while a presumption is not a guarantee, nominating anything that looks like a megachurch is a sure way to waste the time of AfD volunteers, because any church that large has a large influence in the region and needs to be retained as a redirect even if somehow not considered outright wp:notable.  (7) Had the AfD nomination prepared the AfD community by reporting what was found with the minimal searches specified by WP:BEFORE, it would have reported a solid list of hits both from the Lexington Herald Leader (a regional newspaper), and relevant snippets at Google books.  (8) I've never heard of "non-notable support", nor have I a clue what this means.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure you would make the comment,"Not sure what good this is going to do, but..." That implies you do not think I will accept your reasons or I am incapable of understanding.  If I missed the implied reasoning, my apologies.  Thanks for the explanation, sorry you started it out on a negative footing.   red dogsix (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking evidence of notability. As always, I'd be happy to reconsider if presented with new or additional evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2016 (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.