Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillsong Church São Paulo (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Church São Paulo

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

Creation of an article previously deleted by AfD. Still fails to meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable church lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article fails WP:GNG now, but this really needs to be confirmed by a Portuguese-reading editor to avoid systemic bias. E.g. is this article significant coverage in an independent source, as it appears to be? Matt's talk 12:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is an announcement that the Sao Paolo branch of Hillsong plans to open in 2016. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Probably TOOSOON for a freestanding article, but something brief might be added to the article on the Australian mother church with a redirect to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete -- The article is still orphan, but it can be great. There are reliabe sources from official Hillsong's page (hillsong.com/saopaulo). Please, keep the article, it will be improved and will receive new reliabe sources. --187.35.196.111 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Please, do not delete the article, there are reliabe sources. The church opened in Brazil last year is already a success. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was reviewed and accepted. It is still a baby article, but have reliable sources and can be great in the future. My opinion is to keep the article. --Lindodawki (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and very selective merge to Hillsong Church#Network. Hillsong (Hillsong Church) is a big Christian brand, but I cannot find that the new branch in Sao Paolo has had enough WP:SIGCOV to justify a separate article. Perhaps merely WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Hillsong Church UK has an article; I can see that Hillsong Church Kiev was redirected to Hillsong Church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- UK includes the entire nation and it runs an annual conference for Europe. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's right. Also as Peterkingiron says above, while it now seems WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article, it may, merit one as the London branch church did. Not all parishes have articles, but all dioceses are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Hillsong is not organized as parishes and dioceses, but it is a similar a hierarchical church structure. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

The article expresses a larger organization of the Hillsong Church and its scattered units. The affiliate has its own identity and particularity. It is growing and can be greater. The sources are reliable and the influence is already enormous. --191.8.82.64 (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The church is located in the largest country in the southern hemisphere and already has a great influence. The unity of the Hillsong church in São Paulo is already recognized and famous. The article must be maintained because it is a unit that has its particularities and that in a short time of opening already exerts great achievements.--DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of this recognition should be reflected in write-ups in the media, shouldn't it? The fame, should similarly be reflected in the media. Certainly someone has recognized and written about the great achievements you mention. Why can't we find this content? I tried to look for them in the Portuguese-language article, but there isn't one. There isn't a Spanish one either. Perhaps you can provide sources to show that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article has reliable sources, great Christian and secular media sites have already highlighted the importance and influence that the unity of the Hillsong church in São Paulo already has. Great internet portals already follow the church community, which is located in the heart of Latin America, the largest country in the southern hemisphere that has enormous relevance. --191.8.82.64 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in Portuguese and Spanish have not yet been created, but will be. But that does not justify the lack of relevance, it simply shows that someone has not yet created Wikipedia articles about the newly opened church, but highly relevant sites prove the success that the church already has. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the article should be maintained because it is about a newly opened church that already has high relevance and influence. The article is under development and may still grow, but already has reliable sources. --177.47.238.22 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are simple: 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable sources that are 3) independent of the subject. The sources provided are

http://revistatrip.uol.com.br/trip/a-igreja-australiana-hillsong-fenomeno-gospel-chega-a-sao-paulo-entrevista-com-o-pastor-chris-mendez - great article with significant coverage

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/hillsong-church-sao-paulo-dezembro/ - not significant coverage

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/hillsong-sao-paulo-sera-inaugurada-em-2016/ - not significant coverage - same editor as above

http://www.adiberj.org/portal/2015/10/29/hillsong-church-divulga-sobre-nova-igreja-em-sao-paulo/ - not significant coverage

http://oguiacristao.com.br/agenda-cultural/hillsong-sao-paulo-se-reune-dia-17/ - not significant coverage

https://guiame.com.br/gospel/agenda-gospel/com-pastor-brian-houston-hillsong-sao-paulo-realiza-seu-primeiro-culto-nesta-terca-feira-31.html - not significant coverage

http://www.stefanyblog.com/2015/02/hillsong-sao-paulo-nova-filial-da.html - not significant coverage

So we have significant coverage in one source that is independent of the subject. This fails GNG as stated so many. Pretty simple really. This is TOOSOON. And I find it odd that a few minutes before DavidStarIsrael7 responds an anon from the Sao Paolo ISP called Vivo responds with a positive comment as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article follows the criteria of relevance in its sources, because it has significant coverage, reliable sources and independence of subject. Correcting you, below is the real significance of the sources. Adding new ones. The sources provided are:

http://hillsong.com/saopaulo - official Hillsong São Paulo's page

http://revistatrip.uol.com.br/trip/a-igreja-australiana-hillsong-fenomeno-gospel-chega-a-sao-paulo-entrevista-com-o-pastor-chris-mendez - great article with significant coverage

http://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2016/02/hillsong-a-igreja-hipster-que-atraiu-justin-bieber-e-busca-sede-em-sao-paulo.html - greatest secular Brazilian portal - article with significant coverage

http://celebridades.uol.com.br/ooops/ultimas-noticias/2015/03/11/igreja-de-justin-bieber-abre-sede-em-sp-em-dezembro.htm - great secular portal - significant coverage

https://tvefamosos.uol.com.br/noticias/ooops/2017/01/02/saiba-mais-sobre-a-igreja-hillsong-que-acaba-de-chegar-ao-brasil.htm - great secular portal - significant coverage

http://fotografia.folha.uol.com.br/galerias/49632-filial-de-igreja-australiana-na-vila-olimpia - great secular portal - significant coverage

https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/bbc/2016/02/25/hillsong-a-igreja-hipster-que-atraiu-justin-bieber-e-busca-sede-em-sao-paulo.htm - great secular portal - significant coverage

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/hillsong-church-sao-paulo-dezembro/ - great Christian portal - significant coverage

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/hillsong-sao-paulo-sera-inaugurada-em-2016/ - significant coverage

http://www.adiberj.org/portal/2015/10/29/hillsong-church-divulga-sobre-nova-igreja-em-sao-paulo/ - secular portal - significant coverage

http://oguiacristao.com.br/agenda-cultural/hillsong-sao-paulo-se-reune-dia-17/ - significant coverage

https://guiame.com.br/gospel/agenda-gospel/com-pastor-brian-houston-hillsong-sao-paulo-realiza-seu-primeiro-culto-nesta-terca-feira-31.html - secular portal - significant coverage

http://www.stefanyblog.com/2015/02/hillsong-sao-paulo-nova-filial-da.html - not significant coverage

I must correct you, Walter Görlitz for your rashness and false reasoning. Almost all sources are reliable, only one source is not. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must correct you, for your rashness and false reasoning because each source must be all three, and while almost all sources are reliable, most of the sources are brief mentions of the place. One to two paragraphs is not usually considered significant coverage which is why most of the editors have been stating that this should be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources listed above are not convincing for notability, being WP:SPIP or passing mentions. The page is largely WP:ADVOCACY as in:

"According to Hillsong Church senior pastor Brian Houston, the inauguration of the church in Brazil will be a major breakthrough!"

Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion, even for worthy causes. This content belongs on the church's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the sources listed have notability. They are from great portals of influence.

"According to Hillsong Church senior pastor Brian Houston, the inauguration of the church in Brazil will be a major breakthrough!"

This phrase said by the pastor is not something promotional, quite the contrary, is a proof of the notability about the open church in Brazil. It shows how important the institution is. --191.8.82.64 (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources are from great news and media sites of relevance.

The article has reliable sources with relevant paragraphs. The greatest secular portals in Brazil, such as UOL and G1, have already reported on the importance and influence of the church. The article needs to be kept. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It need to be kept.

The article is good and has reliable sources. It is still a beginner article, but it can still grow and become a great article, so one needs to give it a try and keep it. The article will grow and become a better article than it already is. --191.190.154.28 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2017 (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.