Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor Gaslamp

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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor Gaslamp

Essentially spam. This Christian community did get a little bit of local media coverage but certainly not enough to support the current content of the article or, in my opinion, a full article which can be properly sourced. Oh and if you like the notability guides: WP:ORG. Pichpich (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Klein[[User talk:Klespan style="padding:0px 0px 1px 2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach]] 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Of the two newspaper articles the SD Reader is a weekly paper, but the Union Tribune is a daily paper serving a local, but significant, metro area - it's at the border of regional vs local paper I'd say - it claims to be in the "top 25" US newspapers on it's 'readership' page and with a circulation of 300,000 it's equivalent to, say, the Guardian or the independent in the UK market (though not ranking as high in national influence, obviously). It would be nice if there were coverage other than of the opening of the church, though - it's a bit "oneventy" right now. MadScot (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, noting the serious NPOV problems in the text. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Now Neutral - see below. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete as this is an original event and exclusive type of Christian Community in Northern America. This Kind of Community only really exists in Great Britain. This is the First of it's kind in the states and is a new model for church organizations. The Missional Movement and Incarnational Communities are relatively new in the Christian Movement. So new in fact that there is very little written on Wikipedia about them. When I first heard of this idea, I could find NO information on here about it. Once this Community Started it was the perfect informational center to explain the hows and whys of these new movements. This community embodies these ideals. now if someone is interested in the subject matter, they will find a working model. This is NOT spam or advertisement. This is pragmatic definition, not an ideal. Please Consider giving instructions for revising the article where needed instead of deleting. Please instruct me on how to improve the article and make it acceptable. vince11881 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince11881 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete (more) - Below I have Copied the afore mentioned notability guide originally used to begin this discussion on the validity of this article WP:ORG:
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.
Vince11881 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince11881 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be an exercise in futility but I've greatly cleaned it up so some of the more glaring problems have been largely mitigated. WP:CHURCH would be a good place for those familiar with the church to look at. There's an orphanage? Has this been written about? You may find Wikipedia:Citation templates helpful as well to see how different sources are cited. There may be online sources that do source this information but we're not yet finding them. The group is likely too young to be in any books but they might be written up in magazines or have their activities in the larger community documented. -- Banjeboi 23:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The Following are excerpt that pertain to this article from the guidelines mentioned in WP:CHURCH:
Guidelines:Local churches, parishes, and congregations should usually be considered to be notable if they meet one or more of the following criteria, as documented by references cited in the article:1. The congregation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the church itself. 4. The congregation plays a notable or significant role within its denomination or religion. This only should apply if the denomination is notable in itself. It also should be documented by sources external to the individual church, but possibly internal to the denomination. 10. The congregation's teachings or theology is considered unique or notably controversial. The teachings should be of the individual church, not its denomination. 11. The congregation building has particular architectural and/or historic significance."
Please Consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.35.158 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The topic has been the subject of significant coverage in two reliable sources. All else is WP:PROBLEMS. The issues with the article can and will be rectified. the skomorokh 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The re-write is excellent. However, if I'm going to move over to Keep, I think it's going to be necessary to show a reliable source backing the claim made above that this sort of community is otherwise unique to the UK. (I'm a Londoner, and things like church plants and Christian groups meeting in Starbucks are pretty common here, even within the established Church of England.) That would make the Anchor community definitely notable and distinctive in North America. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if I'm reading you right but they are in California.

I know they are. A commenter further up this AfD discussion mentioned that this project is apparently the first of its type in the USA, and that such projects are otherwise restricted to the UK. I was reporting the anecdotal evidence that these things are indeed reasonably widespread over here in England. I hope someone else can tell me whether this is, in fact, the first in the USA. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, I doubt this is a first but a part of a trend of evangelical churches doing so. That they seem to devote half their gatherings to doing community outreach instead does seem notable so that part may be more unique. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an offshoot of the much larger Anchor church in San Diego which started in a similar manner and now runs it's own school and is quite large; Vince Larson is likely related to Rev. James N. Larson. Unclear what official tie-in the two have. There are more sources just on the individual pastors but given that everything in the article seems supportable I'm inclined to week keep. -- Banjeboi 20:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable source material to maintain an article and good liklihood of finding more. -- Suntag ☼ 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you claiming that one of/both the references are unreliable sources or that some/all of the coverage trivial, or both? Both articles are dedicated exclusively to the subject, and are several paragraphs long, so I can't imagine that you think the coverage is trivial, while it seems a stretch to cite the Sand Diego Union Tribune or San Diego Reader as printing unreliable information about a church group. Would you mind clarifying? Gracias, the skomorokh 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Articles are reliable, nontrivial and pertinent, Subject of Debate is of descent notoriety and informative to people interested in the subject, and all issues in the original have been corrected in the rewrite. No real basis for deletion or further discussion on the matter.— 72.199.104.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.