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 keep. Any renaming, merging, etc can be discussed on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Waynesville Baptist Church[edit]

East Waynesville Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete — The church is needing to have this article removed because they are going through a branding process and search engine optimization of the existing website of the church and any activity online is being hindered by this article. It is promoting itself above everything including Facebook, google maps, and search engines which list this article above any searches that include the name East Waynesville Baptist Church. This article is also damaging the churches ability to develop a better rapport within communities locally after many years and many changes within the church that have been established. Please also see how having a Wikipedia article can negatively effect a entity online trying to brand itself. I have created the official Facebook page and website for the church but Facebook will not allow the removal of the Wikipedia related page they created. Google has also integrated this article on its own into the quick facts section of its maps.google.com website. This is also referenced below. Timothywebb (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)^[1][2][3][4][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep FWIW, I don't think we should rewrite history. WP:GNG shows it as notable enough. No compliance with WP:Before. Their "branding process" is encylopedically irrelevant. And no compliance with procedure as required by WP:PROD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete FWIW, We are not rewriting history. If some one wants to know the historically noted events on the church there are many other ways to obtain them online. The process is called research and many other outlets are available that contain the same information noted in this article. Per the guidance of 7&6=thirteen, I have corrected this article and tried to follow the procedures for WP:Before and WP:PROD. I did not know it was a requirement to do. Thank You --Timothywebb (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You already registered your opinion above. Vote early; vote often? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. Sorry, nominators may not reiterate their position with a bolded delete !vote, below. I've struck that through. For more information, see WP:AFDFORMAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep — Procedurally and technically invalid filing of the deletion discussion. No valid policy case made in nomination. Additionally, the article appears likely to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:GNG, and there is no suggestion being made that it is factually inaccurate. Being undesirable or inconvenient for PR purposes is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a responsibility to accurately document history where notability is present. As and when the church makes a notable positive impact on the world, which is documented by independent reliable sources, that can be added to the article, in addition to the current content. Murph9000 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added to and reformatted the references to make them in line. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP As long as the article is accurate we can't really determine what Google does with it. Carptrash (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: this AfD was generated without the proper layout, and without entering it into the AfD log. I've now had a go at tidying it up, but more needs to be done to put it in the correct format, so more editors will have a chance to see this and join in the discussion. I can't see any procedurally valid deletion reason given in the original submission; perhaps the original poster might want to see if they can provide one? -- The Anome (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, I was tempted to close it early per WP:SKCRIT as there simply isn't a valid deletion rationale, here. The nominator is asking for a sort of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE for this church and its political past as I understand it, which of course doesn't apply to organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Though it does occur to me that we don't need this and Chan Chandler? That does seem like overkill and the church isn't notable except for Chandler's actions, is it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I am in discussions with the church in review of the article for facts, modifications, inaccuracies, dead links, along with questionable content and I will comment further at a later time. Timothywebb (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Timothywebb: In that case, you need to be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (COI). We will be glad to improve the accuracy of the article. Please cite reliable sources for all suggested improvements to it. Significant changes which do not cite a reliable source are likely to be rejected. Wikipedia is generally not interested in what a subject (i.e. the church) says about itself, only what good independent sources say about it, but will always take feedback from a subject. You should make any suggestions for changes on the article's talk page, and not directly edit the article (due to your COI). Murph9000 (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment By and large I have put in most of the WP:RS that are presently on the web. There are blogs, however, which didn't seem to fit the bill. The article could be broadened out to reflect current events, etc. at the church. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and selectively merge to Chan Chandler I'm going to go the other way on this. The church is not notable, except for the unilateral actions of Chandler, am I correct? And if that is so, Chandler is no longer associated with that church. If others agree we might then need another Afd to see if Chandler remains notable under Wikipedia:BLP1E, too. At any rate it seems unfair to permanently tar this otherwise non-notable church for the actions of one man -- if I understand correctly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That is correct Chandler is no longer associated with that church. http://www.ewbaptist.org/node/4 Timothywebb (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pastor Ray Sharpe from East Waynesville Baptist Church does officiating for http://www.smokymountaincremationsandfuneralservice.com/obituary/Christine-Ann-Gilliam/Bethel-NC/1569344 and http://www.wellsfuneralhome.com/obituary?id=1607037 . Timothywebb (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was the church, including its pastor and board, that expelled the members. I disagree with the proposed merger to the hypothetical article. It was. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chan Chandler It isn't "hypothetical." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was?" The article has existed since 2005. They were actually created a mere 13 days apart in May of that year, by two different editors. Anyway that's not the issue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have nominated Chan Chandler for deletion, as it quite clearly fails WP:BLP1E. We don't have a similar policy for organizations, but this is clearly an "organization notable for only one event". StAnselm (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This is a 100 member congregation. There is just not enough sources to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beyond the 18 19 that are there, how many more are needed to conclude it is notable? Just asking. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we all need to read the requirements for notability because I have reviewed them and I find that the notability of events in my mind is making this article completely non notable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28events%29 Timothywebb (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a 100 member church that attained notability through multiple reliable sources. That remains true, even if people and circumstances have now moved on. -- The Anome (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: The Anome (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the extensive coverage on the controversy. South Nashua (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it actual coverage or just many entities using the church as a point of reference when discussing other larger topics not related to the actual incident and political agendas? Remember wikipedia does have a policy about election years in which this was one. Timothywebb (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers

Shortcuts: WP:NEWSBRIEF WP:109PAPERS WP:WIDESPREAD WP:WSNC Many stories are reported in the news just once on a single day, or over a period of a few days, and then are forgotten. They may receive coverage in newspapers in every city and town across a nation, or even throughout the world. But they do just for that short period of time.

Many newspapers are reliable sources. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And notability is not temporary. News does get shared between news sources, and is often printed in hundreds of papers, covering a large geographic area, identically word-for-word in each paper. So an article may look impressive and pass for being notable if it has 109 references, each from a different paper. But just because you bombard an article with identical sources does not mean it can never be deleted.

This is especially true of biographical articles. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. That person should instead be covered in the article about the event itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Existence_%E2%89%A0_Notability#Don.27t_create_an_article_on_a_news_story_covered_in_109_newspapers Timothywebb (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Updating to Strong Keep. This subject received national coverage from various sources and differing angles. I disagree with the assessment that this was just copy and pasted between "109 newspapers." South Nashua (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we allowed to do duplicate voting here? Timothywebb (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strike South Nashua's duplicate vote. Just to keep it tidy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. It's just an update to the original comment. South Nashua (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:GNG. I can see an argument for deletion given that A) it is effectively self-requested and B) one could make a ONEEVENT argument. As advice: I'd suggest changing the name of the church as part of the rebranding... Hobit (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Here is a source written by Senator and former comedian Al Franken:

• Al Franken (2005-10-25). The Truth (with jokes). Penguin Publishing Group. p. 74. ISBN 978-1-101-21333-9. Retrieved 2016-10-07. Thankfully, when even the Southern Baptist Convention said the Republicans were getting a little too cute, the "Safe Harbor for Churches" amendment died a quiet death. It seems that not every pastor got the word about section 692 of H.R. 4520.

Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Christian Right, or delete and redirect  As a suggestion for further development, consider expanding Christian Right to cover the "Safe Harbor for Churches" act as discussed by Al Franken. 

  As per this source, churches with 100 members are medium size churches.  It is my opinion that medium-size churches are not generally notable.  While some of the burst of attention in 2005 is going to the church itself, more of the attention is going to a national political story.  If the attention is going to the church, why do we know nothing about its founders?  There seems to be a tentative opinion that the topic satisfies WP:GNG, but there are several reasons why such an article should not have a standalone article.  For one, the topic fails WP:SUSTAINED.  To some extent, the article fails WP:COATRACK, and as such, the topic might be deleted under WP:DEL3, "pages that exist only to disparage their subject".  A core policy that has not been mentioned here is WP:NPOV.  Articles require sufficient WP:V WP:NPOV material to write an article, which we don't seem to have here.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename. The sources present show that the church is notable. If the name has changed, we can just rename the page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:33, 10 October 2016 (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.