Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia[edit]

Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally prodded this article with a concern of no evidence for notability. The author contested the prod via a talk page query. It was subsequently speedily deleted as G11 promotion. The author reposted it. An A7 deletion request was met with the author's declaring intent just to repost (presumably again). I think we need to come to a consensus on this article subject's suitability for Wikipedia. LadyofShalott 03:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Delete, salt if need be. A cursory glance at Google search results reveals to me no suggestion of notability. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Average and typical church doing a fine job of what churches do, but non-notable as an organization. The local gas station pumps gas, the local McDonald's fries burgers, the local church does what this one does, all satisfactorily, and kudos to them. Does not seem to have reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage, thus failing notability. Edison (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt I speedied this, non-notable, spam, no refs, could well be a copyright violation, what's to discuss Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of referecnes that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks reliable sources, no notability proved. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maybe if you looked at my sources you would see that they are reliable! i talked to many members at this church for information including one of the preachers....is that not RELIABLE? i am determined to keep this article up here one way or another. this church is doing great things in South georgia and yall are just too single minded to see it. there are other documents about churches up here? why dont you go harass their authors as well! Vscheer94 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Do Not Delete Informative article. There are articles on both the city and county where this church is located. This is a piece of those histories. There are thousands of articles on wikipedia about less notable topics. Those looking for this information will be able to find it; those who are not interested will not be affected. Wikibrian28 (talk 15:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikibrian28 has only edited this article, and is presumably a sock of Vscheer94 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikibrian28 has never met Vscheer94. Sometimes it's not best to make assumptions. I edited because I thought integration with other wikipedia articles might be helpful. Every one of you had a first article you edited. This one is mine. I am impressed that someone put together something like that for a school project. Again, the article is informative and harmless. Wikibrian28 (talk 15:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in another discussion, I have a compost bin. It is now mentioned in two places on the internet - but it is still not very notable. (Might get there someday...) This article is fairly harmless - somewhat promotional in places. Harmlessness is not a criterion we look for. (On the other hand, libel is one we do look for - to delete it...) The article must be referenced and comply with Wikipedia's standards no matter whether it is a class project or otherwise. Peridon (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that saying that "there are articles on both the city and county where this church is located" is not a particularly strong argument. Any populated place that shows up in the U.S. Census will already have an article about it, and any legally recognized populated place in any country is generally considered notable (although we don't necessarily have articles about all of them yet). But we don't consider all religious congregations in the world automatically notable just because they are located in places for which Wikipedia has articles or should have articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - salt if there are problems No, the church members (not even the preacher) are NOT a reliable source. Look at WP:RS to see what is. The other articles are irrelevant. If necessary, they will be taken care of in due course. To me, the article starts off as borderline on spam, and then tells me more than I want to know about a very ordinary sounding church (or is it a Church - there is a difference). No reliable sources are given to show any notability. Note that 'reliable sources' is a term here applied in the usage of Wikipedia. I don't doubt that your preacher is an honest person who wouldn't tell lies - but that's not what we mean. I would suggest that someone expand this into a booklet that can be supplied by the church authorities for anyone interested in the history and work of this establishment. I'm afraid if you go on reposting it (in the event of deletion) that the title will be 'salted' - which blocks re-creation without special permission. If you do get better sources, you can contact the closing admin to see if they are in conformity with our requirements. Or if you can find them before this discussion closes, add them and tell us here. Peridon (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sure it's a nice church for the local congregation, but there's nothing special or notable about it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I held off on commenting to see if there would be an effort to add sourcing to the article. I don't see any effort to do so. Vscheer94, you may want to create a subpage article in your own userspace if you genuinely want to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. I'm sure that there are a number of editors who would be willing to help you with that. For now, the article cannot be kept. Henrymrx (t·c) 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are some other typpes of sources i could use to bring this up to these ridiculously high standards. Vscheer94 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you wikibrian28- i appreciate your support Vscheer94 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:RS for an overview of what is needed. Peridon (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by salt the article? Vscheer94 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means that the name will be protected so that you can never recreate this article. Given your stated intent to disregard any outcome of the AfD process and recreate the article no matter what, salting will prevent that. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly has no notability and just an average church. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SNOW A look at online sources reveals no WP:RS coverage. I found yellow pages, yahoo local, and weblinks by the church itself. Does not meet WP:NOTE. Appears to be solely sourced by itself in the article. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so would it help me to use the yellow pages and yahoo local sources Vscheer94 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. They confirm existence, which no one was doubting anyway. They do not establish WP:Notability. Please, have you read WP:RS yet? LadyofShalott 15:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is we understand its there, but there is nothing that we can find that shows it to be notable enough to need an article. This is an encyclopedia, not a yellow pages ad. If there were articles about the church doing great works up and beyond what a church would be expected to do, or had a notable past, like being involved in the Civil War or something notably similar, we would welcome the article. Sorry. Like was stated earlier, it seems like a nice church doing things that a nice church would do, but not notable things. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Central_Avenue_Church_of_Christ_Valdosta,_Georgia&oldid=1077704680"