Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garden City Christian 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This article makes no claim to notability for this church, and most individual religious congregations are not sufficiently notable to warrant articles in this encyclopedia. Furthermore, the article has been tagged for cleanup since January 2006, yet has received no significant improvement over the last seven months and only a few edits in total since then. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 13:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DJ Clayworth 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ditto. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral, pending further discussion. - Smerdis of Tlön 11:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nomination --Mecanismo | Talk 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Whoah, slow down before we do a kneejerk 'it's a church -delete' ('ditto' etc.), let's do some thinking. Probably individual religious congregations are not per se notable (although since we keep even the smallest school, that's perhaps a little strange). However, the nominator here doesn't seem to have read the article: 'makes no claim to notability' - actually it does. 1) 'Megachurch' suggests very large - let's investigates that. (I've found one claim it's the 3rd largest AOG chuch in (Australia/the world) - but the source isn't good) . 2) Employs 50 staff - if that's verifiable then it certainly would be notable - given that most local churches employ 1-2, it would be larger than a small denomination. The nomination is frankly erronious.--Doc 18:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I could be wrong. However, the article currently states that the church is "large" and gives a "see also" reference to Megachurch (as opposed to stating that this church is a megachurch), but doesn't indicate how large the congregation is. By contrast, the article on Willow Creek Community Church (an undisputed megachurch) says they have 17,000 to 20,000 people in attendance each week. However, having 50 people on staff would indeed be consistent with Garden City Christian Church being a very large church. I will reconsider the nomination if the article is improved during the AfD period. --Metropolitan90 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You are wrong. And since the article asserts (and did when you nominated it) that it has 50 staff and runs a college, you nomination seems to indicate you didn't read the article. If the assertions arn't verified then you should have marked if for verification, or tried to verify it yourself - no nominated it for 'no asserion of notability' when it has one. See my further evidence below - which I found with a gentle google. --Doc 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete for now, however agree this could be salvageable, megachurches are notable and fifty staff put it in that league. However to change my vote a secondary reference is required. Addhoc 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Em, so you delete things which assert notabiliy, because you can't be bothered to check it. Please note our default position is normally to keep things, unless shown to be unverifiable. --Doc 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc, the nearest I have found to a secondary reference is , which isn't good enough. The PhD thesis downloaded blank. If you want me to change my vote, find a decent secondary reference. Addhoc 10:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The PhD thesis loads down perfectly for me, and obviously for others too, since someone else has just added it as a source to the article. Sorry, I'm not technical enough to help you with your downloading problems. --Doc 17:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per Addhoc (Revised to neutral per comments below. -- Slowmover 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)). Seems to be a big church, but nothing out of the ordinary as regards activities or history. Note there are also churches with this name in Garden City, MN and Indianapolis, IN (and no doubt others). -- Slowmover 19:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So, it's a normal activity to have a college in a church? All the churches in your neck of the woods do that? Hmm. --Doc 21:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The church I go to used to have a "College of Life" every spring: essentially, a series of evening Sunday-school classes taught by the pastor or by volunteers from the congregation. It had no academic credentials and issued no degrees. If this church operates a genuine institution of higher education, it probably is notable enough. The statement in the article didn't necessarily get there, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 11:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK, here goes - and no doubt there is more...

In the 1980's it was claiming a worshiping congregation of over 2,000 (same cite as below) - assertions of growth since

In 1981 it established a 'school of ministries' training pastors for other congregations - which appears to offer distance learning and accredited honours degree studies (search for Garden City in this PhD pdf - and see their website Clifton, S. J., (2005), An Analysis of the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia, PhD thesis Australian Catholic University. There seems to be at least seven members of academic staff. , and a reasonably stocked theological library

They have a distinct ministry to the deaf

The employ a number of staff including 'department heads' - this implies a lot, but there are no indications of how many

Now, can we please stop deleting things without reading the article or doing some basic research (oh strong keep - an shame on you all). --Doc 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need articles on churches because they do churchy things like missions, teaching, etc. Obviously this is a very large and active church, but the article doesn't actually say much about it, and that's a problem. Having a large library and a ministry to the deaf is just the normal course of business for churches. But I'm not overly fussed if we keep it, so I'm changing my vote to neutral. (BTW, I did read the article, look at the website, and found the deaf ministry, too.) -- Slowmover 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It doens't say it, {{sofixit}} - don't delete it. I know of no churches (although doubtless there are some) which have their own Bible college and semi-academic library, with an on-line catalogue, stocked (and I checked) with many liberal-art theology texts. FFS, we keep every school. --Doc 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mako 23:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteWeak keep. The article appears to be a mix of original research and directory style information. Are there any reliable third party sources for any of the information in the article? -- Mako 00:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC). Changing to weak keep due to reference - though the article could use another reference. -- Mako 12:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you check for information, before voting to delete? If there is OR or POV, then it should be removed. But actually, the phd thesis above, and the Australian Theological accreditation (which I've verified), has enough information verifying significant facts. --Doc 07:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a google search and don't recall finding much about the church (there was some stuff about events at the church though). That thesis does mention it though (is there anything else about it?), so I'll change my recommendation. -- Mako 12:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete jesus spam --Xrblsnggt 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Em, yes well now you are just showing prejudices. Fortunately that's not yet a deletion criterion.. --Doc 07:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am vehemently and unabashedly prejudiced against spam. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Not even for churches. --Xrblsnggt 15:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There are some stories in the media about this church including about a fire in 2004 which destoyed its youth centre. It has a 1700 seat auditorium according to the Brisbane Sunday Mail so it is a reasonably significant building . If deleted, it should be mentioned in our Mt Gravatt article. Capitalistroadster 04:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep evidence of megachurch status provided in article, stubbified. Paul foord 10:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I still see no evidence of megachurch status, nor do I see any notability established here. The "evidence" provided is not sourced. wikipediatrix 14:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • See p. 216 of the reference Paul foord 14:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The comment is invalid anyway - we don't delete things because their claims have not been verified (although they have here) we delete things because, after much research, they are found unverifiable. At any rate, we've shown this place has an accredited college with 7 staff and an on-line catalogued library - that is extremely rare, if not unique amoungst churches. We've shown a good number of other staff, pastors, and 'department heads' (alhough the '50' claim may not be verifiable - and should probably be removed). I have to say, given that there is a string of keep votes for even the smallest little school, the tone of this debate, the extremely high thresholds being set, the disingenuous claim of 'no assertion of notability' (that missed the claims to a college and 50 staff), the demands that everything be verified now (without the voter trying themselves), leads me to suspect some element of bias is at play. I suspect that any other voluntary sector body claiming as many employees and activities wouldn't even have been debates. --Doc 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of bias just because they demand verification is a pretty low rung on the ladder of WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL. wikipediatrix 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I accused no single editor of anything. No doubt there are some voting for deletion that would vote for the deletion of any school or other organisation of a simmilar size - that's fine. What is not fine is applying standads here that are not applied elsewhere. The need for verification is not usually a deletion criterion - the inability to verify is. But, the existence of this as a megachurch with a lot of staff and a college was verified from the outset.--Doc 15:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That is what you say. I have seen no evidence that this is a megachurch, and I'm not even sure that the definition of a "megachurch" has been properly determined. However, if they do indeed have a fully accredited college, the college might deserve an article whether the church does or not. wikipediatrix 17:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I've no use for the term megachurch, since it is too vauge. But we have verified that this church 1) had 2,000 attendenting in the 1980's 2) employs at least ten named individuals in its pastoral staff, some of whom are 'department heads' (unless their website is lying - which is hardly likely) 3) is strong enough to establish a college offering accredited degrees - employing six teaching staff and librarian who maintains a on-line catalogued theological library. Yup, I'd like us to get better sources and clearer information, we should work on that to improve the article. We should either remove or mark as unreferenced the stuff we can't verify. But why consider deleting it? It isn't a hoax, and we can at least be sure that it is an extraordinary church. What's the problem? --Doc 17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The 1980s were twenty years ago. A lot can happen to a church in twenty years, just ask Robert Tilton. wikipediatrix 12:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and he is certainly notable. So what? Lots of things even died off in the 80's, but they are still notable. Help, delete The Beatles, I mean a lot has happened since 1970.--Doc 15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Doc glasgow (particularly the last comment). --Tony Sidaway 13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I know the church in question - it is nearby here in Brisbane. I can attest to its status as a "megachurch" (going by the definition on the wiki page here) and the church numbers haven't declined since the 1980's, so it's still up there. There are a few media articles around that I may be able to get a hold on to help the article regarding facts and things like that. Jaems 03:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Importance and megachurches and all that aside, where's the non-trivial third-party commentary on this church? The only thing that anyone has scrounged up is an off-hand one-sentence mention in someone's thesis. If we can't do better than that, then we should leave this link red until someone actually has some sourceable content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get this. Forget the thesis then. This church clearly exists - that's verifiable. Its website indicates a lot of staff - that incredibly unlikely to be lying. That it has a college accedited by the Australian College of Theology is verified . . The theological library is verifiable . That's surely enough for a stub. --Doc 08:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a significant spread in Brisbane's Courier-Mail last year sometime with some interesting notes. If that was found and referenced, would it change anybody's vote? Jaems 09:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone who is interested and in Brisbane should head down to their library then and find some references. If the church is notable they shouldn't be too hard to find. -- Mako 12:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep please megachurches are notable really important to brisbane and surrounding area Yuckfoo 12:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep seems notable 99of9 02:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - churches this size should be notable. As some of the facts in the article are verifiable, it should be said that this church and others like it which don't have historical value but are notable in other ways should be kept. (JROBBO 06:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC))
• Delete: it isn't notable. Krugs 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep is notable. plrgrs 08:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely Weak Keep, if it were a company with 50 employees, it would probably be notable (although, I'd probably argue that most of these AOG "megachurches" are companies anyway :v) Lankiveil 07:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC).

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.