Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway Church (Australia)

: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. Consensus is that the new sources suggested in the AfD are not of sufficient scope or reliability to constitute significant coverage establishing notability. Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

=[[Gateway Church (Australia)]]=

:{{la|Gateway Church (Australia)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Gateway Church (Australia)}})

Non-notable church. The only significant coverage I can find is [http://www.frankstonweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/frankston-council-gives-gateway-church-nod/2063210.aspx]. Even this has as much about the interjector as the it does the subject. The rest of the linked newspaper article smells a bit like a press release. No in-depth widespread coverage. Fails WP:ORG. I have previously tagged for notability. Quality of text has deteriorated markedly in recent edits. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - it appears on the List of the largest churches in Australia, but that is out of date, according to what's in this article. It's shrunk down to "ordinary size". It's got lots of programs, but there is no notability demonstrated. StAnselm (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Its appearing in some Wikipedia article has zero bearing on its notability, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also notability is not temporary. In no way are we publishing a list of things that are notable today, while deleting things that used to be notable. The problem is finding any reliable and independent sourcing for this church which is not run of the mill local paper coverage, or a community bulletin board. Edison (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete A larger than average church, but the refs are directory listing of activities, or local government website, or local newspaper. These do not rise to satisfaction of WP:ORG. The church did "me-too" emulation of the Willow Creek model; no indication they did anything really innovative or with national or international effects. If the article is kept, the spammy praise of one family in the church, the Paynters, mentioned seven times in the article, including "2008 was a great year for the Paynter family as their son Michael released his long awaited singing career" should be corrected. It reads too much like like a Paynter Christmas letter archive. Edison (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly an attempt to sabotage this page was made with the edits made by 121.220.54.143. This person clearly added negative and opinionated conjecture to the page - both by repeatedly referencing the Paynter family (as per reason for deletion above) and by adding opinions about leadership failures, building and land set backs, copycat practices and inferring competition between pastors and churches - all of which are unnecessary in an article which should inform readers of facts. Similarly I have removed sections regarding leadership style and possible influence on the church due to their lack of relevance. This church clearly has a large influence on its local community given the number of local newspaper article on its programs - I think it should be kept based on its merit for an admittedly local group of people - particularly noting its programs available to the wider public of the area: theatre company (public profile), basketball association (public profile) and cafe (public) Singe.gill (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Singe.gill (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — Singe.gill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The editing mentioned above is so clearly in bad-faith, that I think the relevant principle is DENY. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Please also discuss the notability of the subject, and not just the supposed bad-faith editing of someone. "DENY" is not a notability guideline. Goodfaith editors othere than the one noted have expressed doubts about the satisfaction of WP:ORG by this institution. Edison (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added a couple of local press reports. It has clear local significance. To me the more global notability is likely to be from the church-planting in Papua New Guinea. Any chance of citations for that from PNG? Obviously there's plenty of scope for a clean up. --99of9 (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:ORG says "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." So more than local press reports is required. Edison (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment My point is that there are probably reports in PNG given that four churches were started (as well as the ones we've found in Australia). Local reports in two countries makes the organization sufficiently international in impact in my books. --99of9 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment More than hand-waving assertions that "sources probably exist" is needed. Edison (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added a reference by the Digicel PNG Foundation documenting a partnership of theirs with Gateway for projects in Moitaka. Remember that English internet searches have a strong bias against finding news reports from PNG. --99of9 (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment And an article in Compassion Australia's magazine which mentions the work in Port Moresby and Goroko. --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete pretty much per Edison. These sorts of "new wave" churches almost all make wild hand-waving assertions about their importance which are rarely able to be substantiated other than in their own publications. Orderinchaos 08:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete clearly fails WP:ORG. no substantial coverage to justify existence of article. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. (Nom) Just a comment regarding the recent refs added for the Papua New Guinea operations of the church. 99of9 has claimed that these reports "make the organisation sufficiently international", in his or her view. Firstly, they are both promotional material from the two charities and would barely be reliable. They may help substantiate specific claims made, but they are still not adequate to demonstrate notability of the subject of the article which must have significant widespread coverage. The refs provided are passing mentions of the subject and not about the subject itself. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment Since the phrase "must have significant widespread coverage" does not appear in WP:ORG, let me remind you of what does appear in that guideline:

:::Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

::::The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

::::Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources.

::Which of these two standards do you think is missing? We have verified the international activities ("widespread"), and we have detailed coverage ("significant") from the local press. Sure, they're separate, but they add up to notability in my books (and the guideline IMO). --99of9 (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC) [P.S. For the avoidance of doubt: I have no conflict of interests with this organization, I had never heard of them before this AFD.]

: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.