Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camberwell Baptist Church

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sources brought up at Afd are a start, but either were trivial in mention or related to the subject, thus possibly being good enough for WP:V but not helping article meet WP:GNG. Since there was the possibility of more substantial sources, I took it upon myself to investigate print archives and the materials available at my local university library and was able to only find a handful of sources, once again trivial (a mention in an obit a lady was a member of the church, or that a couple was married there, et al). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camberwell Baptist Church

[edit]
Camberwell Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not appear to be notable. Pretty much looks like a vanity page for a local church. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable suburban church. None of the sources listed actually promotes or confirms notability. The first is an assortments of miscellaneous mentions in the NLA archives of The Melbourne Argus which document minutiae only - installation of a pipe organ, advertising services and other incidental, non-notable events. The second references an internally-produced brochure on the occasion of its 50th anniversary (dime-a-dozen for churches of this age around Australia). The third is an article penned by the pastor of the church for an internal publication. Murtoa (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on automatic notability for venerable churches. When you think about it, just about every town in the world, big or small, has a house of worship that is over 100 years old. As for the tally of saved souls, I believe that's up to "The Great Closing Administrator in the Sky". Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding sources to assert notability is flawed if those sources document trivial events. The three recently-added references don't advance notability claims in my view. Two of them simply show that the church has been used to hold public meetings - it's not clear that the meetings related to the church - it simply might be that the church's facilities were hired. In any case, the fact that two barely notable meetings were held there is not notable in the life of the church and shouldn't be part of the article. The third reference merely documents the 50th anniversary of the church. The fact that the church has been around 100+ years isn't in itself notable in my view. Murtoa (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In almost every deletion debate there is a nominator who ignores the policy WP:PRESERVE, and does not attempt to work with the editors and creators to add additional sources to the article before putting the article up for deletion. The article put up for deletion is almost always created by a new user. The nominator puts the article up for deletion citing notability. Editors then attempt to save the article by adding sources, doing what was supposed to be done by the nominator in the first place. The nominator then complains that the sources are not good enough. Through this entire process, the nominator's sole "contribution" to the article is a deletion template, and complaining about other editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor: Murtoa...please point out the vandalism. I"m missing it. Your requests for citations are a bit stringent. Most churches have a ministry, most churches attend to the needs of the young and old and affirmed, etc. This seems to be a small, out-of-the way church. Why would you ask for a citation re:# of followers, etc. It seems, at some point in the church's 110 year history there were 400 followers. Show's some success at saving souls, don't you think? If the pastor can provide some information, I suggest he do so. Considering the topic, I agree there may be a POV at work here. But I'm not sure if it's in the article or the editors trying to burn this church down.--Buster7 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who cares about the nominator? We should be discussing the merits of the article, not one another. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i contacted the church via email. we will see what turns up. thanks for your hard work explodicle. Ikip (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having trawled through Google without success, I think that the brochure on the 50th anniversary could turn up some worthwhile info; otherwise the current sources are weak. To be fair I'm not really familiar with any general consensus that a 100-year old church is notable or not; maybe it is. Buster7, the content I considered vandalism was "Camberwell Baptist Church is now being revitalised with an influx of White Australians." If not vandalism, it's a really weird statement with no basis in fact and I found it somewhat offensive. Ikip, you appear to be confusing the nominator with me. I did not nominate the article, but stand by the assertion that sources that refer to the church premises being hired for non-notable meetings don't advance the notability of the article. However, by my recent edits of the article I've tried to Wikify it by removing POV statements and pointing out where sources are desperately required. Maybe I've been over zealous, and hopefully some source documents like the 50th anniversary brochure (which unfortunately still won't be secondary or independent of the subject) may assist. Murtoa (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Murtoa...I made that entry re:White Australians and I fervently apologize if it was offensive. That was not my intent. It came from one of the google sites that I found. ...(http://www.crossover.net.au/content/documents/camberwell%20Bapt%E2%80%A6rch%20article.pdf) In fact now I remember that the google reference called them "anglo's' which I changed to WA. I thought I "softened" it--but I guess not. Again, My apologies. Thanks for your efforts to svae the article.--Buster7 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found a picture of the corroboree tree that used to stand in Camberwell and have linked it. However, the article needs to be rewritten to remove sections that have been taken word-for-word from the Crossover article. Murtoa (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The senior pastor just responded to my email inquiry, I won't post his response, since he did not give me permission, but I will post two lines: "I find 'notoriety' a strange criterion given many of the organisations and people listed on Wikipedia...Our church does not need saving via Wikipedia! We have been going for 118 years and are doing fine!!" he did not provide any additional references. Ikip (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not enough solid info to set this church apart from others in essentially the same place over the years, and Camberwell, Victoria has a WP article, and is presumably notable for residents etc. This will preserve the actual content of the article, and allow, I hope, for the main article to be improved (which it looks like it needs). Win-win. Collect (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it looks like the main issue here is whether or not the sources meet the notability criteria. I've started a section below to examine them, please add any you find or comment on them below. Right now I'm leaning towards keep to err on the side of caution, but I'm ok with merging too. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Camberwell, Victoria. It would be a pity to lose the information about this rather historic church. A merge would preserve the history and provide access to the information in an appropriate context. The citations haven't yet been found to support independent notability, but it has come ntoability and is worth including. This would allow for future independence if good sources are found or emerge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhile we are on the subject, maybe someone can explain to me why articles about churches (and high schools) are less notable, less worthy, less encyclopedic, than articles about the latest Anime character or the third show of the second season of Battlestar Gallactica? I appreciate that we are working on saving the article and I agree it should be merged rather than lost.--Buster7 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. The challenge is to find appropriate sources, which is less straightforward for these topics than more contemporary topics. It means footwork and hunting through libraries rather than banging away at a keyboard. Murtoa (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator has since added further references, which ideally require verification which might be challenging. Murtoa (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Buster, High Schools are almost always kept now, whether there are independent sources to establish notability or not. And pop culture topics are often targeted for deletion after their heyday. There doesn't seem to be much coverage from reliable sources on children's cartoons and transforming robots. As far as churches go, common sense would suggest that those older than 100 years are likely to have some notability, but if no legitimate sources can be found there's not much to meet the notability guidelines or that can be reliably verified. So keeping it around in merged form until more substantial sources are uncovered seems a reasonable compromise. My frustration is that there are arbitrary inclusion criteria like ALL Olympic and professional athletes, but good luck getting fairly accomplsihed college athletes in. Which I think can be a bit awkward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ ED:ChildofMidnight...not to contradict you but just to let you know. Ive been involved in attempts to speedy delete 2 new high school articles in the past couple of weeks. I just ran across a "speedy deletionist editor" with a long trail of angry newbies on his/her talk...all related to deletion of school articles. So...the trend continues...--Buster7 (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a spiritual sense, sure. In the sense of Wikipedia notability, no. Mandsford (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • Rolfe, Peter (June 6, 2006). "We'll keep fighting Camberwell Junction protesters answer rally call". Progress Leader.
  • Does anyone have a copy of this so we can check it? --Explodicle (T/C) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the church located close to Camberwell Junction, it's very likely that the venue for the rally was chosen on the basis of its central location, rather than anything related to the activities of the church. It would be unusual for a church to get involved with a town planning issue and I still consider this reference adds nothing to the notability or the background of the church. Most churches in Melbourne hire their halls etc to the public, and I suspect the only difference in this case is that the rally itself featured briefly in the media. Murtoa (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camberwell_Baptist_Church&oldid=1137669721"