Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochford 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. NW ( Talk ) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Rochford community church

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable community church in England. Does not pass WP:ORG. Warrah (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * delete, no useful google news hits. Polarpanda (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG. FairmontMN (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google is not the only arbiter of notability.  This is a community church that has existed for 26 years, that makes it very early in the house-church movement, and in a community like Rochford keeping any sort of religious community open is a matter for congratulation.  Yes, the article content is sparse, and could be enlarged upon.  The church has two web sites, so material is available.  if the site is not kept, it should at least be merged with Rochford.--Brunnian (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've missed the point on notability. It's not whether the organisation should be congratulated for something, it's whether there is coverage in reliable third-party sources. Google is not an arbiter of notability, but it is customary to search Google / Google News to see if there are any article out there that would support the article. There's no reason why you can't mention the church in Rochford, but the regulars on that page might expect equal coverage with all other places of worship. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable church. The organisation's websites do not constitute reliable sources. Crafty (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing on news search, only blogs and directory listings on web search.  The only clause in WP:ORG that might speak in the article's favor would be longevity, but I don't think it suffices.  Favonian (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not assert notability. Article author has a WP:Conflict of interest, and if the church were sufficiently notable, a third party could write an article about it. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- It is a regret to me that most local churches are NN. The best solution is commonly to merge the article with that for the palce where it is.  I have undertaken the requisite edit to Rochford.  This means that there is nothing worth retaining here.  Alternatively, convert article to Redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing in the article show notability, although the article has very little content other than a mission statement. MilborneOne (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- I think i must apologise. I am the author who posted initially the article on Rochford Community Church. I have since added. It wasn't my intention to use the page as advertising for the church. My intention was to build a page to show to other church leaders in Rochford, Essex and to suggest that we could either all have a page or add our individual churches to one page "churches in rochford" for example. I hear and agree that it doesn't fit (in it's current form) within notability guidelines. Is there room for negotiation and some conversation regarding this at all? If not i understand. I am of the opinion that churches do not use web 2.0 that well and am very keen to utilise this medium to it's fullest potential. Any thoughts please?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddywhale (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 December 2009 (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.