Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Eastern Christian Centre


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

South Eastern Christian Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I had originally deleted this under speedy deletion criteria A7 - no claim of importance or significance, however the author of the article contacted me, and upon re-reading the article, I saw that it did indeed have a claim of significance (see next sentence) and restored it - letting the author know that I would be bringing it here.

The only claim to notability for this church is a 214% growth (actually, to be precise, the growth was 114%, the total membership being the original amount (100%) + the additional amount (114%)).

The main source of referencing is a book written by church itself, while the other main source is about the parent organisation, not this church.

I could find 2 references in Google News Archive, both of which are very minor ("This year Ted's foot soldiers are from the South Eastern Christian Centre in Endeavour Hills"; "The evening was organised by the South Eastern Christian Centre and several groups from the wider community also took part in the action"); likewise Google Books has two minor mentions ("He had become involved with the New Life Christian Centre and the South-Eastern Christian Centre which were church groups in the Dandenong region."; "Equally, is it acceptable to speak of a collection of 30 (State Zionist Council) or 4 (South Eastern Christian Centre) books as a library?"); Google Scholar had no hits.

I can find no evidence that this meets either the notability criteria for organisations or the general notability guidelines.

I should also mention that the name of the main editor is that of the current leader of the church, and I have referred him to the conflict of interest guidelines.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  — Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Big numbers have no bearing on notability.   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 12:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly fails WP:ORG. Lacks reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - no evidence of notability; only trivial mentions in Google Books and Google News. However, I lean towards inclusion of religious denominations. There must be sources somewhere. Perhaps someone can do some digging? -- 202.124.72.240 (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I did look - perhaps rather than asking others to do some digging, you could do it yourself? There is nothing in the general/organisation notability guidelines that say that religious denominations are inherantly notable - to meet the notability criteria, multiple examples of significant coverage at independent reliable sources are required. I couldn't find those, hence my putting this up for deletion.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any decent sources. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Appears to be purely promotional. Article creator and main editor, if that user name is a real name, would have a significant conflict of interest. Promotion would then be self-promotion. Bleakcomb (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2011 (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.