Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birchcliff Bluffs United 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birchcliff Bluffs United Church

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

Fails WP:ORG. Lack of significant coverage in third party sources per [1]. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the 5500 GHits that your search returns is evidence of a "<l>ack of significant coverage in third party sources"? Unscintillating (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that I found no significant coverage...meaning depth of coverage. Number of Google hits != to level of significant coverage. What really matters is how many of those 5500 Google hits are non-trivial sources, and from my search, that was very few if any. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A typical local church congregation does not satisfy WP:ORG, the applicable notability guideline. No presentation of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. See also Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations), a failed notability guide for religious congregations and their buildings, which represented the thoughts of several editors on the subject. Edison (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GNG is an alternate applicable guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found 21 hits in the last 4 years in a Toronto newspaper. Here are three of those hits:

www.insidetoronto.com/what's%20on/article/913843--different-holiday-stories-shared-at-birchcliff-united-church-this-year
www.insidetoronto.com/what's%20on/article/227948--a-christmas-carol-read-aloud-twice
www.insidetoronto.com/article/62287--bluffs-food-bank-expands-services-to-meet-needs
My point here is that there is more to this church than the article and the above two comments reveal. Unscintillating (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an ordinary church, really. St Anselm (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How big is it? Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure what makes it notable. Humourously, it links to List of United Church of Canada churches in Toronto, and look at the number of similar articles deleted. Not a deletion rationale, but I wonder how many of these were by similar authors. CycloneGU (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without Prejudice Given the absence of references for the material currently in this article I think it is reasonable that everything in the article be deleted. At the same time, I personally suspect that this church is WP:N "worthy of notice": it has a history going back almost 100 years, there are multiple newspapers in Toronto, and we know of frequent newspaper articles in one newspaper during the last four of those 100 years. At this point we don't know enough about the church to know its size. None of the delete votes has made a case that this church is not notable (either the research is not verifiable or there is no research reported), what they are saying is that they don't have information that the church is notable. The difference is that a deletion here should be done without prejudice to recreation. Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews shows very limited coverage mainly confirming its existence. [2]. most local churches do not have notability, existing for almost 100 years is not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the statement about existing for 100 years was not an assertion of notability so this is a straw man, it is an assertion that there is good reason to believe that 525 sources exist, so the article should be deleted without prejudice. Until research is completed in all of the local newspapers for all of those 100 years, there is not actually research to show that this church is or is not notable, all we can say with the current research is that we don't have sufficient material. Unscintillating (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill church. --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 5 May 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.