Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acts 29 Network (2nd nomination)

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. I find a rough consensus the article meets WP:GNG in its improved form. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acts 29 Network

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

Same reason as when it was voted to be deleted in 2006. Non-notable "church planting network", doesn't assert notability, doesn't even explain what "church planting" is. Categorized as a church even though they aren't one. Fails WP:CORP regardless. Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: This is a pure rehashing of the reasons for deletion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acts 29 Network (Non-notable "church planting network", doesn't assert notability, doesn't even explain what "church planting" is. Categorized as a church even though they aren't one. Fails WP:CORP regardless) without a careful reading of the existing article. As the article re-creator, I am well aware of notability guidelines. The article doesn't need to explain what "Church planting" is - that's why we have wikilinks. The assertion of notability comes from the fact that there are are 400 churches in the network, but - more importantly - the significant coverage in independent sources. These are clearly cited in the article - I fear the nominator has not carefully read the article. St Anselm (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent RS'es already listed in the article show that it meets the GNG, and a topic need not meet both an SNG and the GNG in order to be notable. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, fails GNG and SNG. Sources listed are predominantly self-published. Two are dead links, one mentions Acts 29 in passing, and there is only one, maybe two that discuss it at any length. Other than sources that are tied to, not independent of, or published by the subject of the article, there is no RS to support the number of churches in the network. GregJackP Boomer! 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't bode well when an IP removes the AfD tag. GregJackP Boomer! 00:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think this version is substantially similar to the previous version? St Anselm (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that two independent sources that discuss it at length is exactly what is needed to pass WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which two? Henard doesn't discuss it in depth. Palmeri is even shallower, presenting 7 bullet points on why the Mo. Baptists should not participate with Acts 29. Refs 2, 3, 8, & 9 are self-published and useless. Challies is a blog, and not a RS. Jackson's link doesn't bring up an article on Act 29, but when you search for and find the article, it mentions Acts 29 in passing, in reference to a speaker that they scheduled. The Village Church site doesn't refer to Acts 29. Christ the King gives a page not found error. None of that meets GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 00:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a couple more references to the article. St Anselm (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seltzer works as a RS, put out by a known publisher and in depth. 109.org is a student journalism project, which are generally not considered to be a RS. GregJackP Boomer! 02:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment I decline at speedy tag placed on the article for deletion as a re-creation. The article is not substantially the same as in was in 2006, when it had no independent sources whatsoever. This is not a comment on the current acceptability of the article one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added another independent source backing up the claim of 400 churches: [1]. St Anselm (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Every source is a church link or church news website or blog or affiliated with the subject. There are no sources here through a major news outlet, semi-major or even a local town. Maybe some of the info could be merged into the article of its founder or the sponsoring church (Mars Hill). Basileias (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete - I agree with Basileias.Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added 16 new sources on Talk:Acts 29 Network. The 4 books are rather not independent as you define it, however, newsorg sources include USA Today, various metropolitan papers, a college campus paper, and brief mention in the New York Times. Still delete? ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. References 2 and 4 are neither church links, church news websites, blogs, or affiliated sources. But why would you exclude church news websites? They can still be reliable sources independent of the subject. In particular, Associated Baptist Press is a notable news service. St Anselm (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References 2 and 4 are both book references, but all these sources are church and christian based and have a vested interest in the promotion of this. Ministry's have never been an encyclopedic topic. They might slip into Wikipedia, but any more serious encyclopedia...not even close. Basileias (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Not only do I think that StAnselm has a good nose for notability, having worked with him at DYK, I must insist that the page has importance in reference to Great Commission Ministries, a page I am working towards developing as an expansion on the Great Commission church movement. Church networks represent an institutional framework of higher notability than many incorporated cities and educational institutions present on Wikipedia, just by the sheer volume of attendees. Add to this a HuffPost Religion article. A second Christian Post article. Can please keep this? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately someone does not have a good nose for humor...lol. That huffingtonpost post source, and that is about the best source yet talks about the deceptive practices of this group and closes by stating "I'm all for congregational and denominational change. But when it's the same old white guys preaching largely the same old agenda, it smacks more of a desperate power grab than a genuine longing to better know and connect with the world around us." Yeah, you found a good one. Basileias (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also added criticism from within the Southern Baptist Convention. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Basileias's demand for sources with no connection to Christianity is bizarre, as is the assertion that ministries (whatever that means) are inherently non-notable. The fact that the HuffPost article is negative doesn't change the fact that it's providing significant coverage of the network. --JFHutson (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass GNG --No unique names 08:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY due to StAnselm's work. There are now plenty of good book sources to keep it. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (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.