Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roanoke Valley Bible 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. I'm willing to assist with a selective merge upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Roanoke Valley Bible Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Recently established, run-of-the-mill congregation with no indication of significance. The references included in the article, other than the Web site of the congregation itself, range from the irrelevant (the home pages of the seminaries that the pastor attended) to the tangential (the history of the congregation's apparently nonnotable parent church, the historic-district status of the neighborhood containing the storefront where the congregation will begin meeting next Sunday) to a seemingly self-supplied, directory-like precis in the local newspaper. I'm not finding anything better online, so I suggest that this article fails the GNG. Deor (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't imagine a church like this getting substantial coverage, and given the recent date of establishment, we'll need to beware feature-style news stories.  There's definitely nothing demonstrating notability right now.  Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not seeing anything after a short and obviously self-supplied snippet from the Roanoke Times. I generally think a low bar for churches is a desirable thing as these tend to be community landmarks, but owing to the recent origin of this one I don't think that thinking holds much water. Fails GNG, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Can't see anything notable -- not longevity; nothing about size of membership; no major media coverage. Appears primarily to be promotional (posing NPOV problems) and Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause .... --Lquilter (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of notability. No evidence that the church is particularly large, and it is definitely not very old. Brief profile on the local newspaper website is not the kind of third-party coverage needed for GNG. A large part of the article is about the parent church; so I wondered if the parent church might be notable, but I couldn't find third-party coverage of it, either. --Orlady (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although the church is relatively new (founded in 2009), it has a hundred years of rich local history. What's notable here is this history, which the church is invariably a part of. Although there isn't many newspaper articles about the "church," the bigger picture here is the story of it's formation; which has been cited and referenced.MagicEye (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the founding church which is much older is notable. But this is a new church, begun in 2009 as a "plant"; it doesn't have its own notability, and notability is not inherited.  If the source church is notable, then the (cited) history and so forth would go in an article about the source church; and this church can (until its own notability is established) be a small footnote in that article.  --Lquilter (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I Google-searched for information about the founding church (which I referred to in my comment as the "parent church") and did not find anything to indicate notability. --Orlady (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge a short summary to Roanoke, Virginia - in a new "Churches" or "Religion" section. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2012 (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.