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

Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia

(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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:45, 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 Nicolao^{Che 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]

Delete and salt- reasons given above. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean by salt the article? Vscheer94 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]