Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Room Prayer and Worship Center


 * 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. A possible redirect to Word of Life Church is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Upper Room Prayer and Worship Center

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this worship center such as would confer upon it the notability requisite for a stand-alone article. The church it is part of does appear to be notable, however. Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * delete, no indication of notability. Lom Konkreta (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to the parent church article. -- 202.124.73.241 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could understand a redirect, and that would be fine with me. And any appropriate material could be created there.  But a merge would -- as this is challenged -- require RS inline citations for the text, which we do not have.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that part of the merge policy? -- 202.124.75.75 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: it seems that the best way to do a merge here would be to add one of the pictures to the main article with a short caption. StAnselm (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CHALLENGED, any material challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. We can't add such challenged text to the target article without violating wp's core verifiability policy.  This is also discussed at the talkpage of WP:MERGE here.  You don't have to merge a picture -- you can add it (just done).  A merge does require (as distinct from a redirect) the movement of article history to the target article; by the editor proposing merger, not by the closer.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that you have tagged the article as challenged. Although merges of material containing tags of various kind are routine, that probably strengthens the deletion case, unless sources can be found. And I must admit, on searching I can't find even one WP:RS. -- 202.124.75.50 (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did it only to clarify -- if it wasn't already clear to each and every person from the already existing tags -- that it is challenged. It would, I would submit, be a violation of our core policy as wp:v to move (essentially, recreate in a target article) text that has been challenged and which still lacks an inline RS citation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable, no reliable sources say so... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete By challenged, I think is meant "reasonably challenged", and the reliability of a source for material depends upon the nature of the material. We do not normally require a third party source for routine information about an organization, unless there is some reason to suspect it. The existence of this room as part of the church can be supported by their own web site; that a church should have a room for prayer is not exactly controversial. But there is nothing distinctive about this room; everything said here about it in the present version is already in the main article. The earlier material about the symbolism of the room is not encyclopedic content. It might be for a famous building, but then there would be third party sources.  I do not consider it a likely redirect, either; anyone likely to think of it will already know this church. Having a separate article on it amounts in my opinion to promotionalism. (I leave aside for the moment the question about whether the church itself is notable, or if all the content there is defensible).       DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 2 February 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.