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.
Non-notable church. Only one reliable source, and that just says that it exists. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I volunteered to rewrite this article after a previous version by another editor was deleted as G11. Clearly, the self-promotional issues that doomed the earlier article were removed here. What remains now is a decent little stub. The article passes WP:RS without problem, and the Knight-Ridder news article cites it as being prominent within the emerging church movement. Its notability for its off-beat setting and services are also clearly cited in the media coverage. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficiently passes WP:N. Unlike the nom's stipulation, the Knight Ridder Newspapers article goes far beyond "it exists." Curiously, this is the nom's only argument to delete this article. --Oakshade (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per Ecoleetage. The sources show exactly how this is notable, such as the Knight-Ridder news articles of the emerging church movement, so there is no reason to delete. Easily passes notability. – RyanCross (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable church. Maybe we should add every church, business, store, 7-eleven, just to be fair?--T*85 (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can provide an explanation of your !vote...just to be fair? Ecoleetage (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos on the response, Eco :P. T85:While we shouldn't add "every" church, if you look at WP:CHURCH itself most churches are notable. In keeping with the fact that AfD is a discussion rather than a vote, maybe you could cite some policy? A Slippery slope argument hardly helps.Ironholds (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the refs given, under WP:CHURCH:1. no, 2. no, 3. no, 4. no, 5. no, 6. no, 7. no, 8. no, 9. no, 10. no, 11. no --T*85 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Ecoleetage. Johnfos (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the pass of WP:CHURCH. Prominent within the emergin church movement=guideline 4. Ironholds (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You guys realise that WP:CHURCH is not a guideline, right? — neuro(talk) 04:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per T*85 as a non-notable church. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ask for reasoning and policy Per T*85. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ask for ref to back up claim of being notable under guideline 4 per Ironholds --T*85 (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyond the several nice refs used in the article, I also found The Bradenton Herald. Per WP:GNG this article passes WP:N. Ecoleetage did a nice job of bringing this article into line. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 05:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MQS. The Bradenton Herald coverage is also part of the Knight-Ridder news syndicate, which means this article received national news coverage in the U.S. For those who did not read it, the article is about the emerging church movement and The Well was the first church cited in the article -- not exactly non-notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ecoleetage has done a fine job of proving this church's notability. SamBlab 12:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as thanks to Ecoleetage the article now has six sources and therefore establishes notability. Also, it gets plenty of Google news hits (see [1]). --A NobodyMy talk 17:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG after sourcing improvement. Still needs cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 25 November 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.