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The result was Withdrawn by nom, a source not cited in the article shows this topic is at least historically notable. Thanks all for your input, it helped. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana)

[edit]
First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:ORG. Assertions of significance are not sourced and most of the article content has been stirred up by internal church disputes which are not of enyclopedic interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources for that level of attendance? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. However based on the size of the building you have to assume a minimum of 8,000 --T-rex 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go here which backs up the claim with a reliable source. There is also this, published in a reliable publication. If they are not good enough, how about the LA Times here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times fragment is almost 20 years old, the adherents.com listing is sketchy at most and the Christianity Today article is an obituary from 2001. These can be cited for what they are but still, I think they're a bit shakey. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irregardless of the exact number, I think everyone here agrees that it is big. Personally I consider any church with over 2000 to be significant, so this is way over that on all counts --T-rex 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, looking at photos on the church's website, I did a rough count of the seats in the sanctuary. No way are there 20,000, not even close. My quick guess was maybe 8,000 but this doesn't mean all those seats are filled every week. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, I think my first quick guess was way too high. I don't believe I see seating for anything more than 2000, maybe a bit less. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did you 1) Pick up on the fact that they have two services on Sunday, 2) that "membership" does not necessarily equal "Sunday attendance", 3) consider the possibility that you may have missed entire sections and balconies in your counting chairs from a picture, and 4) that the article cites "Weekly Attendance" which includes multiple services during the week and quite possibly smaller classes?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, given extra services, 4000. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your later edit, given the angle of the photo and symmetry of the room, no I don't think I missed entire balconies and sections. Truth be told, I added several hundred to my count when I was done, because one could squeeze lots of folks onto those benches. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Fundamental Baptist, Hyles became the church's pastor in 1959. Attendance at the congregation in Hammond, a community in northwestern Indiana just south of Chicago, grew from a few hundred to 20,000 today as Hyles sent hundreds of buses to neighboring areas to bring people to the church each week. Christianity Today "In Memoriam: Megachurch Pastor Jack Hyles Dead at 74" April 2, 2001. Good enough for me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen that source. I'm also aware of the buses. Hundreds of them? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll bite... what do you mean by that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The church keeps (or kept) a fleet of hundreds of buses? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... yeah. It was one of the largest churches in the country at the time and was a pioneer in the bus ministry efforts. Like the sources stated. I'm gathering that you think that they did not have a fleet of buses, or not that many buses... which, of course, they did...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION Is this entire AfD based on the nominator not believing the contents of the article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. However, going by the sources (or lack of them), I still believe this topic fails WP:ORG. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's take a look at the reasons given in the header: "Assertions of significance are not sourced and most of the article content has been stirred up by internal church disputes which are not of enyclopedic interest." Lessie... the "Not sourced significance" are well sourced by Christianity Today, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times... and the "internal church disputes" involve investigations and records from "Cullman (Alabama) Police" to the FBI. What more could you possibly want? What's your motivation behind this AFD nomination?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are passing references, not significant coverage. If you're looking for a WP:COI motive behind this AfD, you won't find one. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the nominator doesn't beleive the information (hundreds of buses) and then doesn't think that the source is adequate enough because it is "only in passing" even though there are multiple qualified sources (including one leading paragraph in a sample article above) to support the data. If that's all there is, I still stand by my position of keep and leave it to the admins to make the best decision on this afd.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I don't think there is a conflict of interest on the nominator, I'm just not seeing any logic behind the nomination. I'm sure it's a good faith nomination.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind, any editor can take part in this AfD discussion and whatever an admin may do will be limited to closing the discussion based on whatever consensus (or lack) comes up. Speaking for myself, I think the sources are mostly adequate as sources, but don't support the notability of this topic because they only mention the church itself in passing. I'm skeptical about the numbers because the sources on these are not very stirring but the pitch is, I don't see meaningful independent coverage of the church itself. Thanks for talking about this with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep largest church in the state, obvious keep. If that fact turns out to be incorrect, then we fix it... but until then I will assume good faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the meaningful independent coverage of this church as an organization? The sources listed in the article are either publications clearly linked to the church itself, or news stories about criminal allegations against individuals linked with the church. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the "criminal allegations" articles actually do have meaningful information, like the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times article... granted, the article could be cleaned up, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but these sources have to do with individuals, not the church. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't negate the information in them about the church.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it is worth pointing out that the individual involved in those controversies already has an article. Essentially, this article right now is merely serving as a different method of presenting those controversies. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Fix It this is a wiki! If you don't like the content, edit away! But that is a content issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has the church been noted in independent sources as a hub of crime/scandal? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean besides these (allegations, not proof of course)?
  1. By Debra Gruszecki. Church's alleged acts questioned. Local lawyer charges Northwest Indian Times October 22, 1991
  2. Voyle A Glover. Fundamental seduction: The Jack Hyles case. Schrerville, In. : Brevia Pub., 1990.
  3. Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5
  4. "Church leaders sued in sex-abuse case," Chicago Tribune, October 16, 1991.
  5. Baptism by innuendo Northwest Indiana Times May 19, 1993
  6. "7 accused of abuse linked to preacher." The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Michigan: May 17, 1993. pg. B.2
  7. "Preacher has links to molest suspects." The San Diego Union -Tribune. San Diego, California: May 17, 1993. p. A.7
  8. "Springs drive-by baptisms immersed in controversy" Bruce Finley, Denver Post Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colorado.: August 22, 1993. pg. 7.C
  9. Debra Gruszecki FBI won't continue with church sex abuse probe. Not enough Northwest Indiana Times" May 19, 1993
  10. "No Investigation of Church in Abuse Cases, Police Say" Chicago Tribune May 24, 1993
  11. Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5
  12. "Baptist Megachurch Faces Sex Suit". Christianity Today (2006). Retrieved on May 1, 2006.
  13. Debra Gruszecki. Suit claims rape at church Northwest Indiana Times October 4, 1997
  14. "Blind Man Says Church Bans Him, After He Gets Guide Dog," The Associated Press, July 6, 1984.
The only thing we may not agree on is, one can't lock a page down like that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they do. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time Magazine reported in 1975 that they were hitting 14,000 in "weekly turnout", spurred by around 10,000 brought in by 230 buses, and a record attendance of 30,560 back in the 1970's. Hmmm... Even if the building is empty today, that's notable any way you slice it. But go ahead, don't beleive it... if you don't think they fit them in, then why not go to the building yourself and count chairs? I'm sure that TIME MAGAZINE did that back in the 1970's...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33 years ago Time said they (likely) had the "world's biggest Sunday school." This isn't cited in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2008 (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.
More