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.
Comment I find it hard to believe that a 100-year-old church, one of the largest in California, led for 25 years by
Tim LaHaye, is not notable. I have started looking for sources and have added four to the article so far; however, they may not yet be enough for GNG. I will keep looking. --
MelanieN (
talk)
17:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete, or Redirect to
Tim LaHaye. Despite my initial impression, I was not able to find enough sourcing to make this church notable. It could be redirected to its former pastor Tim LaHaye. I suggest the former paster rather than the current pastor
David Jeremiah, because LaHaye is clearly notable and his article is here to stay, whereas I am not so sure that Jeremiah would survive an AfD. --
MelanieN (
talk)
00:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)reply
A search on [David Jeremiah TBN] returns as the first link
[1], which means he is getting worldwide attention. This source documents that these worldwide telecasts are recorded at Shadow Mountain Community Church in San Diego.
Unscintillating (
talk)
00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirecting to just one of two notable (has Wikipedia article) pastors associated with the church seems inadequate; i voted Keep below. --
doncram03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a megachurch
[2], and megachurches are presumed to be wp:notable. This particular church gets attention via an international television network.
Unscintillating (
talk)
00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Could you link to the relevant guideline that makes this point? I'm not familiar with notability precedents for churches.
Gamaliel (
talk)
01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Me either. Megachurches often do get enough coverage to meet GNG; if they don't, they don't. There is no presumption of notability.[citation needed] BTW in the list of megachurches linked to here by Unscintillating, Shadow Mountain does not make it into the top 200. I already deleted from the article, as disproven, the claim to be "one of the largest churches in California". --
MelanieN (
talk)
02:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The guideline is WP:N, which is not limited to WP:GNG. So your answer is that you don't know how many TV viewers this church has. Your claim to have "disproven" the largeness of this church does not stand.
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Yes, I saw that Tebow story; I even added it to the article, back when I was trying to prove notability, before deciding it wasn't much. The church gets mentioned in a single sentence. Are you claiming that the church inherits notability from Tebow? --
MelanieN (
talk)
02:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)reply
It was a big event. The article describes the church as having "sponsored" it, and in the context of the article i interpret that the church organized it (the big event). You don't get 26,000 Americans coming to stadiums for anything religious, easily. The church seems notable to me. --
doncram03:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- My first reaction was that this was a rather typical local church, which we would not normally keep. However as two successive pastors are notable, I would suggest that the church probably is too; redirecting to either would not be appropriate.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I caught the last five minutes of the
Turning Point Wednesday broadcast. I can verify that the church is a part of the broadcast. Specifically what I saw were three camera viewpoints: the pastor behind a pulpit, three congregants in a closeup, and a wide view of the congregants consistent with the possibility of 5400 in weekend attendance. In other reading, I learned that TBN is now the third largest broadcast network in the United States as well as the largest religious network in the world. While looking for other material, I saw in a Google snippet, internet chatter that indicates that the church's broadcasts air in South Africa.
Unscintillating (
talk)
01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid that that is not 'verification' by Wikipedia's standards. What you saw may be accepted in a court of law, or may not depending on the local system. Here, we require that something is verifiable by other people. We need a reputable book to look up, a reliable independent website to click on, a non-local newspaper of good repute to check in. 'Internet chatter' isn't worth the paper it's written on. Please see
WP:V and
WP:RS.
Peridon (
talk)
20:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
As to doncram's remark "You don't get 26,000 Americans coming to stadiums for anything religious, easily" - if that had been 'Brits' I might agree. In Iran, the USA and South Korea, I'd say you had the best chances in the world of getting an attendance like that.
Peridon (
talk)
20:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
My specific statement with the use of the word "verify" is,
"I can verify that the church is a part of the broadcast."
The first point is that I did not say "wp:verify", I did not Wikilink the word to WP:V, and I could change the word to "state" without changing the meaning of my statement; so your objection is without a foundation.
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The second point is that this is a talk page (see WP:TPG), not an article page. Core content policies such as WP:V don't and can't apply to talk pages.
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The third point is that this TV broadcast counts as a publication by a WP:RS, so as far as I know, my statement is fully WP:V verifiable. This particular show airs three times a week, so there are plenty of opportunities for editors and readers to wp:verify, and a church this big will likely have CDs or DVDs.
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
As for "internet chatter", why do you think I would characterize it as such? Does it occur to you that I don't personally consider "internet chatter" to satisfy
WP:V?
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:48, 12 July 2014 (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.
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.
Comment I find it hard to believe that a 100-year-old church, one of the largest in California, led for 25 years by
Tim LaHaye, is not notable. I have started looking for sources and have added four to the article so far; however, they may not yet be enough for GNG. I will keep looking. --
MelanieN (
talk)
17:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete, or Redirect to
Tim LaHaye. Despite my initial impression, I was not able to find enough sourcing to make this church notable. It could be redirected to its former pastor Tim LaHaye. I suggest the former paster rather than the current pastor
David Jeremiah, because LaHaye is clearly notable and his article is here to stay, whereas I am not so sure that Jeremiah would survive an AfD. --
MelanieN (
talk)
00:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)reply
A search on [David Jeremiah TBN] returns as the first link
[1], which means he is getting worldwide attention. This source documents that these worldwide telecasts are recorded at Shadow Mountain Community Church in San Diego.
Unscintillating (
talk)
00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirecting to just one of two notable (has Wikipedia article) pastors associated with the church seems inadequate; i voted Keep below. --
doncram03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a megachurch
[2], and megachurches are presumed to be wp:notable. This particular church gets attention via an international television network.
Unscintillating (
talk)
00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Could you link to the relevant guideline that makes this point? I'm not familiar with notability precedents for churches.
Gamaliel (
talk)
01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Me either. Megachurches often do get enough coverage to meet GNG; if they don't, they don't. There is no presumption of notability.[citation needed] BTW in the list of megachurches linked to here by Unscintillating, Shadow Mountain does not make it into the top 200. I already deleted from the article, as disproven, the claim to be "one of the largest churches in California". --
MelanieN (
talk)
02:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The guideline is WP:N, which is not limited to WP:GNG. So your answer is that you don't know how many TV viewers this church has. Your claim to have "disproven" the largeness of this church does not stand.
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Yes, I saw that Tebow story; I even added it to the article, back when I was trying to prove notability, before deciding it wasn't much. The church gets mentioned in a single sentence. Are you claiming that the church inherits notability from Tebow? --
MelanieN (
talk)
02:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)reply
It was a big event. The article describes the church as having "sponsored" it, and in the context of the article i interpret that the church organized it (the big event). You don't get 26,000 Americans coming to stadiums for anything religious, easily. The church seems notable to me. --
doncram03:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- My first reaction was that this was a rather typical local church, which we would not normally keep. However as two successive pastors are notable, I would suggest that the church probably is too; redirecting to either would not be appropriate.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I caught the last five minutes of the
Turning Point Wednesday broadcast. I can verify that the church is a part of the broadcast. Specifically what I saw were three camera viewpoints: the pastor behind a pulpit, three congregants in a closeup, and a wide view of the congregants consistent with the possibility of 5400 in weekend attendance. In other reading, I learned that TBN is now the third largest broadcast network in the United States as well as the largest religious network in the world. While looking for other material, I saw in a Google snippet, internet chatter that indicates that the church's broadcasts air in South Africa.
Unscintillating (
talk)
01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid that that is not 'verification' by Wikipedia's standards. What you saw may be accepted in a court of law, or may not depending on the local system. Here, we require that something is verifiable by other people. We need a reputable book to look up, a reliable independent website to click on, a non-local newspaper of good repute to check in. 'Internet chatter' isn't worth the paper it's written on. Please see
WP:V and
WP:RS.
Peridon (
talk)
20:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
As to doncram's remark "You don't get 26,000 Americans coming to stadiums for anything religious, easily" - if that had been 'Brits' I might agree. In Iran, the USA and South Korea, I'd say you had the best chances in the world of getting an attendance like that.
Peridon (
talk)
20:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
My specific statement with the use of the word "verify" is,
"I can verify that the church is a part of the broadcast."
The first point is that I did not say "wp:verify", I did not Wikilink the word to WP:V, and I could change the word to "state" without changing the meaning of my statement; so your objection is without a foundation.
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The second point is that this is a talk page (see WP:TPG), not an article page. Core content policies such as WP:V don't and can't apply to talk pages.
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The third point is that this TV broadcast counts as a publication by a WP:RS, so as far as I know, my statement is fully WP:V verifiable. This particular show airs three times a week, so there are plenty of opportunities for editors and readers to wp:verify, and a church this big will likely have CDs or DVDs.
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)reply
As for "internet chatter", why do you think I would characterize it as such? Does it occur to you that I don't personally consider "internet chatter" to satisfy
WP:V?
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:48, 12 July 2014 (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.