Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Mountain Community Church (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. poor non-policy based rationales on the keep side, but not enough discussion for a consensus Secret ^account 19:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Mountain Community Church

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

No indication of notability, no independent sources provided Gamaliel (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it hard to believe that a 100-year-old church, one of the largest in California, led for 25 years by Tim LaHaye, is not notable. I have started looking for sources and have added four to the article so far; however, they may not yet be enough for GNG. I will keep looking. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to Tim LaHaye. Despite my initial impression, I was not able to find enough sourcing to make this church notable. It could be redirected to its former pastor Tim LaHaye. I suggest the former paster rather than the current pastor David Jeremiah, because LaHaye is clearly notable and his article is here to stay, whereas I am not so sure that Jeremiah would survive an AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A search on [David Jeremiah TBN] returns as the first link [1], which means he is getting worldwide attention. This source documents that these worldwide telecasts are recorded at Shadow Mountain Community Church in San Diego. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to just one of two notable (has Wikipedia article) pastors associated with the church seems inadequate; i voted Keep below. --do ncr am 03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a megachurch [2], and megachurches are presumed to be wp:notable. This particular church gets attention via an international television network. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to the relevant guideline that makes this point? I'm not familiar with notability precedents for churches. Gamaliel (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has a long-standing precedent. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. Megachurches often do get enough coverage to meet GNG; if they don't, they don't. There is no presumption of notability.^{[citation needed]} BTW in the list of megachurches linked to here by Unscintillating, Shadow Mountain does not make it into the top 200. I already deleted from the article, as disproven, the claim to be "one of the largest churches in California". --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that any ministry carried on TBN probably has more viewers than the largest megachurch in the world has weekend attendees? Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and irrelevant. The guideline is GNG, not viewership or attendees. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is WP:N, which is not limited to WP:GNG. So your answer is that you don't know how many TV viewers this church has. Your claim to have "disproven" the largeness of this church does not stand. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Tebow event organized/sponsored by the church (already linked above, and it being a megachurch, make it notable, don't need to look further. --do ncr am 01:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that Tebow story; I even added it to the article, back when I was trying to prove notability, before deciding it wasn't much. The church gets mentioned in a single sentence. Are you claiming that the church inherits notability from Tebow? --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a big event. The article describes the church as having "sponsored" it, and in the context of the article i interpret that the church organized it (the big event). You don't get 26,000 Americans coming to stadiums for anything religious, easily. The church seems notable to me. --do ncr am 03:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- My first reaction was that this was a rather typical local church, which we would not normally keep. However as two successive pastors are notable, I would suggest that the church probably is too; redirecting to either would not be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I caught the last five minutes of the Turning Point Wednesday broadcast. I can verify that the church is a part of the broadcast. Specifically what I saw were three camera viewpoints: the pastor behind a pulpit, three congregants in a closeup, and a wide view of the congregants consistent with the possibility of 5400 in weekend attendance. In other reading, I learned that TBN is now the third largest broadcast network in the United States as well as the largest religious network in the world. While looking for other material, I saw in a Google snippet, internet chatter that indicates that the church's broadcasts air in South Africa. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that that is not 'verification' by Wikipedia's standards. What you saw may be accepted in a court of law, or may not depending on the local system. Here, we require that something is verifiable by other people. We need a reputable book to look up, a reliable independent website to click on, a non-local newspaper of good repute to check in. 'Internet chatter' isn't worth the paper it's written on. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to doncram's remark "You don't get 26,000 Americans coming to stadiums for anything religious, easily" - if that had been 'Brits' I might agree. In Iran, the USA and South Korea, I'd say you had the best chances in the world of getting an attendance like that. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My specific statement with the use of the word "verify" is,

"I can verify that the church is a part of the broadcast."

Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is that I did not say "wp:verify", I did not Wikilink the word to WP:V, and I could change the word to "state" without changing the meaning of my statement; so your objection is without a foundation. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second point is that this is a talk page (see WP:TPG), not an article page. Core content policies such as WP:V don't and can't apply to talk pages. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The third point is that this TV broadcast counts as a publication by a WP:RS, so as far as I know, my statement is fully WP:V verifiable. This particular show airs three times a week, so there are plenty of opportunities for editors and readers to wp:verify, and a church this big will likely have CDs or DVDs. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for "internet chatter", why do you think I would characterize it as such? Does it occur to you that I don't personally consider "internet chatter" to satisfy WP:V? Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2014 (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.