Talk:Colorado Community Church

[Untitled]

Doctorg, it was not was placed there through vandalism. I placed it there because of a genuine reading of the article that lead me to believe it is the church is not notable. Three large paragraphs about how some guy became a pastor of a place and then he left, and some other pastor cam along etc etc, does not explain what exactly the church did that is notable. Nor is the fact that it got a new pastor notable. In the Wikipedia article "What Wikipedia is Not," it clearly states Wikipeida articles are not a list of events and that is what this article is. If not, what specifically is notable about the church then and how does the changing of pastors every 6 months relate to that? I see nothing in the article to indicate it is notable. Not to mention the whole thing only has one citation. Next time you think something was "likely" placed through vandalism, why don't you take the time to ask why the removal tag was placed in the talk page? You should not be basing your removal of other peoples work on hunches or undoing other peoples work just because you disagree with it. Maybe it was removed simply due to your bias or a need to control everything that is done in Christian articles, like Walter does. I get the feeling most people like Walter are either to connected to subject or are paid shills. Like I told him, leave that petty controlling stuff up to the Scientologists. If there is no conflict of interest though and if you actually have faith that an article is note worthy, give it a week and let a moderator decide, they would probably know better then us if it is or not. That's the whole point in the tag, to get an official second opinion. I know you want to see the Christian section improved. So do I. But I know that means things will be edited, changed, and deleted in ways that I might not agree with. But just deleting my work off hand is counterproductive and I would't do it to you or anyone else. part of improving things for me involves pruning the lower hanging fruit and editing things that might violate Wikipedia's rules. Its fine if you disagree though. You and your Christian buddies can keep the mediocre articles around, you can leave them incoherent if you want, you can keep links to things in citations that go against Wikipedia rules, you can revert other peoples work just to be spiteful or because you disagree, but its a social platform. Someone, sometime, will do crap you don't like. Hopefully you'll have enough integrity next time to bring it up in the talk page and work things out with the person first before you take action based on a hunch. Because I had valid reasons for requesting the page be deleted and you should asked me what reasons were before you baselessly claimed it was vandalism. I swear you guys give the most feckless baseless reasons for reverting peoples stuff ever. And that's all I see you guys doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adamant1:I agree the page needs a lot of work and probably isn't notable. This wasn't a personal attack against you or a desire to control any part of Wikipedia. The reason I marked it as potential vandalism is because you PRODed 4 pages in a relativle short period of time all in the same general category. There are also a lot of Adamant account variants on Wikipedia, some of which have been blocked. I hope you can see that all of this combined activity looked a little suspicious, so I removed the PROD tag from all 4. Feel free to rePROD the articles and get some discussion going, and thank you for trying to make Wikipedia more legit. Doctor^G  (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@DoctorG:I can understand that. I had not thought about how PRODing 4 pages very quickly would look suspect. I will be more careful about that in the future. As far as the screen name goes, I thought I was being original. I guess not. I will do your recommendation about rePRODing the articles. I appreciate the help. I'm still learning how to do things, and what the best approaches to things are. It can be pretty intimating. Having an open discussion and receiving useful feedback definitely helps. Adamant1 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adamant1:Yep. I suggest you also create a user page, it isn't required but it will help your account look a litle more legitimate amongst all the other adamant acounts....and it will help you organizae what you are working on. Doctor^G  (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Also, before you rePROD them, take a good read through the notability guideline. It's easy to confuse notability with just needing better references or a need to be expanded. You can also reach out to some of the other editors who have worked on it to get their thoughts. I try to find ways to improve articles instead of immediately pursuing deletion. This particular church has been around for 80+ years and may have some interesting historical value that just hasn't been added to the article yet. The same is true with some of the other articles you PRODed. Just something to keep in mind. Doctor^G  (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I tagged 3/4 articles with the notability template, but I think the Hillsong one is OK. Take a look at the music notability requirements, they have published enough albums to be notable. Doctor^G  (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)