Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Life Ministries

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. Consensus is that this article as it has evolved since its nomination demonstrates sufficient notability, although it has evidently been subject to inflated claims. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Life Ministries

There is RS coverage but it appears to be limited to the Washington/Idaho area and covering events at the church. No evidence this church/mission passes WP:CORP. It was speedied as G11, which I don't think applies in this re-creation, but I still don't see evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the size of the churrch is sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've encouraged the IP to bring the discussion here, but there's a discussion taking place on the Talk page about the notability of the church and other issues, including sourcing and NPOV. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking me to this page. I'll continue the discussion here. There is quite a lot of notability about real life. The leaders are asked to speak throughout the nation at conferences. Real Life ministries was noted in the Christian science magazine as the fastest growing church in America. I will continue to bring more notability to the table as I find the sources outside "local press". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.159.122 (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As one of the 50 fastest growing churches in America, Real Life Ministries deserves encyclopedic mention. Opportunity to ensure truthful and neutral description is equally deserving. Real Life Ministries has been afforded almost two years of what has been perceived as advertising. The evidence noted by 'Censored' can be both researched and substantiated. The Citizens of Kootenai, County have a right to know how their designated tithes and offerings are spent, especially when the proposed expansions adversely impact quality of life. I urge Wikipedia to continue this listing for 6 months, restore the history, and closely moderate corrections to ensure accountability and neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainview (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not even assert notability, let alone establish it. Being "fastest-growing" is an inherently unsustainable condition and thus does not imply lasting notability. Who'll care when 100 other mega-churches have outpaced this one? Dethme0w (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can have the 100 articles. almost by definition, sufficiently large mega churches are likely to be notable. DGG (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, if they have sources to prove independent reliable source coverage. As it stands the article has none and I cannot find anything to back up its claim that's not from the church itself. Right now it's promotional and that's about it. There's no evidence to the claims -- or that it's even one of the largest. If it hasn't gotten coverage outside its local area where it operates, then it fails WP:CORP, as would any of the larger ones that don't establish notability. Just because we can have an article I don't think means we should if it doesn't meet standards TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for independent citations. With regret, I frequently accept that most churches that come up under AFD are NN and must be deleted. However if the claims are true (which i cannot judge), the rate of growth makes it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V is at the core of Wikipedia, it cannot be verified as you've said yourself. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research on Real Life Ministries growth and in Outreach Magazine they did a study in 2005 and 2007. Real Life Ministries did not have the percentage of growth that they say, but was still listed as one of the 101 Fastest Growing churches in America. I don't know how to list this as a citation. Here are the links: http://www.outreachmagazine.com/docs/top100_2005.pdf ,and http://www.outreachmagazine.com/docs/top100_2007_fastest.pdf --1TruthTracker (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been the target of relentless vandalism in recent months and would probably be a candidate for deletion in the cannibalized state in which it has been left. I have cleaned up some of the mess and added citation where needed. I see no reason why it should not remain. Bg357 (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLease do not remove AfD tags as you did here. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Reinstate AfD Message Obviously the church leadership feels that they can do whatever they want and ignore posted "warnings" not to delete certain content on this article. I found that I cannot "undo" their removal of the "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" warning. I guess the church leadership feels that they can settle this matter themselves without anyone elses approval. If they were not trying to hide the truth from their congregation, and anyone else, then why avoid the discussion and try to remove all of the proven facts on the Wiki article. They even put back on the old "Mission statement", from their old website (that no longer exists -- www.rlmin.org) that you removed, stating that it is from their current website, when in fact it can be proven, by going to their website, that the same thing is not even on there. It is different. And if you go to the Secretary of the State of Idaho's website; and look at their "Articles of Incorporation", they have indeed been recorded with the State as a "Church of Christ" church. Isn't a recorded document enough "proof" to reflect in their first paragraph, cited as such, the truth? Please do not let this church leadership "bully" or intimidate another organization, such as yourself, to hide the truth. Thank you.--1TruthTracker (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment it doesn't matter that it can be proven, it's entirely unencyclopedic and that's why it has been removed. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD has been restored, not sure when or by whom it was removed but the discussion is not closed, therefore it should remain. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "proven" point I meant to emphasize was the encyclopedic fact of Real Life Ministries being a "Church of Christ" church. I know why you deleted the Mission Statement. Sorry for the confusion.--1TruthTracker (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks any reliable independent sources that would verify the information in the article, and I wasn't able to find independent sources verifying the information with a google search. A claim has been made that the church was discussed in the Christian Science Monitor, but my search of their archives revealed no hits for the term. The discussions of whether or not the church is affiliated with the Church of Christ and whether or not the church's leaders are acting unethically are irrelevant; if the information in the article cannot be verified by sources outside of the church, then the article does not meet the verifiability standard or the notability standard. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A church this size is notable. Not having sufficient references is something that can be fixed, and not a reason for deletion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment verifiability needs to be established before its kept. I'm trying to clean up the inline citations TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't care how big it is, or how much its supporters argue for inclusion, without credible independent sourecs we don't have an article. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be deleted only if verifiability cannot be established, not because right now it doesn't have the references it needs. If every article was deleted because it hadn't yet been completely referenced many fine articles would have been killed before they got started. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment -has local coverage- [1][2], probably others. It all hinges on whether local coverage is enough for notability in a church? No google news hits that I can see. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 15:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Oops, sorry! I didn't know you were listing the citations under "references".--1TruthTracker (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Strong Keep per DGG, and Peterkingiron. I also agree with Guy that it needs better sourcing though. In the 23 seconds it took me to type "Real Life Ministries in Google News, I found at least one article in The Spokesman-Review (full article accessed through accessmylibrary.com), which is an independent, reliable source, asserts that The church...the largest in the Inland Northwest if not the Pacific Northwest, and Space is limited for the 7,500 people who attend weekend services. That number ballooned to 12,000 on Easter.. Also, towards the end of the article Putman said it could take 25 years to complete the new campus, which is planned as 10 buildings with a total of 458,000 square feet of space. It's organized around a village green that could include a two-acre artificial lake, two miles of trails and an amphitheater, in addition to a 3,500-space parking lot. Although local, (all churches are local aren't they? Denominations are the articles that need non-local verifiability) this place sounds significant, whether we like it or not. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spokane spokesman review. The thing is all churches probably have local coverage. I am undecided, I'm not an expert on google news search but when I put "real life ministries" in quotes, it didn't come up with anything at all. Maybe I need to search the archives or something. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 17:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that all churches probably do not have local coverage, at least not in independent, verifiable and attributable sources, beyond simple directories, press releases, and service listings. The fact that this church does (likely because of its size, growth, and commnity involvement) solidifies my "keep". An essay you may find relevant is WP:LOCAL, which says that places of local interest are best suited as subsections of the location (town, county, whatever), unless the parent article is overly long or, to take from the essay, It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article.. I think that's what we have here about this particular church. Most, but not all, local churches would fall under the category of "include in parent/location article". Churhces of historical significance, girth, growth, or notoriety would not. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to be notable, well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Is there something that anyone can do about various people deleting verifiable and substantiated citations and references to the Real Life Ministries article?--1TruthTracker (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to semi-protect, and am not sure if it "kept". Bearian (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just confirmed, and I think my name will be in the log, to semi-protect this afd against contribs from IPs and new users. An unfortunate turn of events, and even though I said in ANI that I wouldn't do this, I did. I would be happy to be reversed by any other admin if it would lead to civil and uncluttered discussion here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 13 March 2008 (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.