Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church at BattleCreek


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  06:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Church at BattleCreek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not sure if this church is better notable or improvable as I found no better results than this, this, this and this and although the current website link is closed, it seems their new website is thechurch.at. and to finish, this would need attention because it has stayed the same since starting in August 2006. SwisterTwister  talk  06:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Looks like a big church that just needs sourcing. possible sources: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- A large and apparently growing church, but not a mega-church. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll swing by for a second look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 17:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - non-notable, non-historic church. —Мандичка YO 😜 17:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Rapidly growing, multi-campus church in Tulsa region. Doing a little sourcing on page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closing editor. I think that I have done enough to the page to justify a "keep".  If you think differently, flag me and I'll try to make time to come back and do more.  However, I am hoping that someone who knows this church and/or the Tulsa area will swing by and improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weakish Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH with regional news coverage:, , . North America1000 08:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - per WP:AUD . Local notability, as as pointed out, but for orgs/corps, there is this added necessity of having broader than simply local coverage. If there was an article or two from The Oklahoman or The Gazette that would do it, but searches at News only returned hits from the Tulsa papers, and Newspapers returned zip.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The coverage I provided is regional, rather than local. Tulsa World is "the primary newspaper for the northeastern and eastern portions of Oklahoma, and is the second-most widely circulated newspaper in the state". This is definitely not only "local" coverage. Also, Tulsa, Oklahoma is the second largest city in Oklahoma, with an estimated metropolitan population of 961,561. North America1000 13:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, with that understanding, now on the other side of the fence: Weak Keep.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:52, 7 November 2015 (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.