Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redeemer Lutheran Church (Victoria, British Columbia)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer Lutheran Church (Victoria, British Columbia)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Utterly non-notable. The only independent source relates to the closing and demolition of the former building. That's included, and that's the only one I could find. Fails the GNG. schetm (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the article being non-notable but have tried to remedy any perceived non-notability. I've added about 5KB to the article, including several additional footnoted references and a section about the church's pastor being a named litigant in an insolvency proceedings for a Lutheran Church-sponsored project in which the investments of many individual investor members of Redeemer Lutheran were apparently grossly mismanaged. I think all of this might help redeem the article. If it is still insufficient, I hope the deletion nominator will give me some more suggestions for improving it. Thanks. Objectivesea (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The info on the CEF scandal is utterly irrelevant to the subject, which is the church. It, and all other info about the scandal, should probably be removed per WP:NPF, and because it has little to do with the church itself. The sources from the LCC are related to the subject - we need independent sources, and the Victoria Times Colonist piece only references the congregation in passing. As for the Goldstream News Gazette articles, well, it's a hyper-local paper, and the articles deal with only one aspect of the church - the demolition of its old building and the construction of its new building. Per WP:AUD, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

So, if you can find something from an independent national source source that deals with the church in depth, the church may be notable per WP:NORG. Even something local apart from the Goldstream News Gazette that deals with the church in depth would help, but right now, the Goldstream News Gazette's the only source that gets the church toward passing the WP:GNG, and that's not enough. schetm (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NORG is pretty confusing as to whether it applies to religious organisations. WP:NCHURCH says that a church organization can pass either WP:NORG or WP:GNG or both. As local sources can contribute to WP:GNG there is enough reliable sources coverage to pass it in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these sources indicate notability. In fact, many are not closely related to the subject. Primary sources about legal actions and an anonymous hit piece[1] about the financial situation are red flags for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceThomson (talk • contribs) 08:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The building is not an historical building, so non-notable. all I get are confirmation of the church's existence, various websites and phone book listings. An interesting piece of local history, not meeting Wikipedia notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I don't think national news coverage is ever required for establishing WP:GNG. If that was the case, just about every local business, organization, school, personality's articles would be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:AUD (which is a fast link to WP:NORG, which WP:NCHURCH is a part of, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Right now, the citations stand as follows:

Cite 1 - an in-depth article about the church from a local newspaper - independent and SIGCOV

Cite 2 - an article from a local paper that references the church once as a drop off point for sweaters - not SIGCOV

Cite 3 - a paper source from the churches own 50th anniversary pamphlet - not independent

Cite 4 - a page in a national archive. The files aren't accessible online, but they were "deposited with the Lutheran Historical Institute by the congregation" - not independent

Cite 5 - an in-depth article about the church from the same local newspaper as cite 1 - independent and SIGCOV

Cite 6 - an in-depth article written by the church's pastor published in the national denomination's magazine - not independent

Cite 7 - an in-depth article about the senior living facility that shares space with the church from the same local newspaper as cites 1 and 5 - independent and perhaps SIGCOV about the church

Cites 8 and 9 - court briefs about a lawsuit served against the church's pastor that do not mention the church as well, and fly close to being a BLP violation - not SIGCOV

Cite 10 - an anonymous blog about the lawsuit in sources 9 and 10 which neither mentions the church nor its pastor - not SIGCOV

So, if we use the GNG standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," of the ten citations, only three meet the GNG standard of being SIGCOV in RS that is independent. And those three only come from one source - the Goldstream News Gazette. All of the remaining sources are either not significant coverage about the church or not independent of the subject. At the very least, we need one more GNG passing source, and another source does not appear to be forthcoming. schetm (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I agree with almost every aspect of the comment above, and I recognise it as a correct strict reading of WP:GNG. The Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability sentence is really what forces the earlier editor to that conclusion. I question if who ever wrote that line meant it to apply to newspapers when they said "organization". If the same journalist wrote them all, I'd agree, but journalists work independently, so I doubt that is what was meant. Of course, that's just my speculation. If we had to strictly approach this as if the guidance was a set of rules, I'd be unable to make this point. But in the context of it being guidance and me being able to make a judgement, I judge this to be good enough. CT55555(talk) 02:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely fails GNG, ORG, Sources are not Ind RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Many refs are promotional, the building is not notable, and notability is not inherited from others associated with the subject. // Timothy :: talk 05:44, 15 March 2023 (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.