Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verity Baptist 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. While it may not have initially been a WP:COATRACK, it does seem evident that there isn't sufficient coverage to justify notability of the church and its "events." ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Verity Baptist Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is no credible claim of notability, it would merit speedy deletion. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I might also have given a little more than seven minutes before considering any sort of deletion. 10-15 is usually considered the minimum. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is why I did not speedy delete nominate, it may have notability, I just cannot find any. Thus I find no evidence of notability, but am giving peopel the chance to provide some.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In the future my suggestion would be that if you want to first give people the chance to find sources, simply maintenance tag the article first(as I had done) and/or discuss on the article talk page, and give some time. Opening a deletion discussion sends the message that you believe the article merits deletion and there is not much prospect of the article being kept. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do believe it merits deletion. I also note it has been 10-15 minutes since I nominated this for deletion, and no sources have been forthcoming, so if I had waited that long it would still have been AFD'd. So I stand by the AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems notable for one incident, maybe enough based upon 10 (notably controversial), but am not sure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Repurpose the article to be about this church's pastor, Roger Jiménez. The two sources provided describe controversial statements by this pastor which were widely and publicly condemned- but the coverage is about him and not the church itself. If something here is notable, it is him. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, he seems to have garnered publicity for a single incident. If anything this is just part of the Orlando shooting controversies, and any material merged to the Orlando shooting article (assuming it is notable enough for even that).Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think BLP1E is relevant here, but whether he merits a standalone article or this should be merged somewhere, at least some of the content would remain. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming we think it should be merged, and I think that this should be asked of those who patrol then Orlando shooting page (after all is this one pastors views really relevant, and would inclusion violate Undue?).Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

, means he has got national and international attention, but still for only the one thing. Really am min tow minds over this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My opinion would be that international coverage would merit this a merge with the shooting article and a brief mention there, but yes, the editors that follow that article should be brought into the discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is also a reaction article it could be merged with instead, I have notified both articles about this discussion (it seems the edds on the shooting article have already rejected inclusion a while back as not a noteworthy opinion).Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete totally fails not news guidelines. With the abyssmal state of religion news coverage, especially from California papers, we really have no reason to think this was ever a significantly sized congregation, and Jimenez does not become notable for one statement. The coverage on him could only lead to an unbalanced attack article which would not meet guidelines on biographies of living people. I would also say the article as written seeks to be an attack article against baptists by not dealing with te disparate, non-exclusive use of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I think it connects to "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" idea. The statement is the focus of the article, it seems to belong more in a newspaper. Lagrime (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEVENTS. I also would oppose merging content into other articles; everything here indicates this group represents an extremely fringe position with no lasting impact. Daask (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no evidence that the church is a notable organization, and an article about its pastor would just be a WP:BLP1E of a person "notable" for a single controversial comment at best. Bearcat (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The whole thing feels like an ATTACK COATHANGER. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is my fault, before that it totally ignored the controversy (caused by trying to find sources about this church, it is all it is really notable for).Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2018 (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.