Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightside 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brightside Church

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are maybe 20 mentions of Brighside Church, Michael Stowell, and/or the Blessing of the Bikes in local newspapers, but they are all routine coverage, and thus fail WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stowell. Dbratland (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... here comes the religious discrimination! This is an awesome page, and to say that the articles are routine is assnine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable church. And I must say that the comment by the anon IP above is spoken like a true Christian, LOL. Qworty (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete How would you know if it is non-notable? It sounds like you are not a Christian, so how would you know what are notable churches? Does using the word assnine make someone look bad in their christianity? Look up the word and expand your vocabulary. The idea of cutting of the page is assnine. This page has already passed the guidelines to be included in Wikipedia. It is a very notable church and is known not only in the USA but also in other countries where they have helped many other churches and Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I very much suspect that you are the one who needs to improve your vocabulary by learning that the word you are looking for is actually "asinine". Phil Bridger (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In answer to the comment, we know its non-notable because no one's noted it, other than local news outlets which routinely mentiion such organizations. For a while I thought that the allegation that a volunteer at this church was using his position to sexually assault teenagers might make the church notable, but then I realized that that's not really much of an unusual thing nowadays. (If "keep" advocates can add to the article enough reliable-source coverage to bring the church into notability as the scene of criminal activity, they should do so, and that might change people's minds on deletion.) On another note, perhaps the church can start a literacy program so that its parishioners can learn to spell words like asinine correctly. EEng (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Don't Delete;~~ [repeat recommendation from same IP editor] Interesting, it was notable enough for you to find that info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines, starting with WP:N, before participating further. As already stated, not everything mentioned in the newspaper counts as notable. EEng (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple voting. The sole defender of the article, an anon IP that's posting from the same area as the church itself, has now voted "Don't delete" TWICE, in violation of AfD protocol. Qworty (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember this is not a vote -- really, it's not; if it were, then all we'd do is vote and there wouldn't be all this back and forth with arguments and counterarguments But I've struck out the 2nd recommentation from the IP. EEng (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. It just sounded more polite than "multiple bloviating." Qworty (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need for article. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't Delete~~ [Third recommendation from same IP!] Very notable church here in USA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.171.178 (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. 98.209.171.178, is it possible you don't you realize we can tell this is you recommending keep over and over? (Note in passing: it appears from comments at another AfD [1] that the "here in USA" bit of the IP's comment stems from his or her belief that my username EEng means that I'm in England. EEng (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2011 (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.