Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaza Baptist Church

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Baptist Church

[edit]
Gaza Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable church TM 05:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that does not prove notability...but it does strongly suggest that we should exercise greater care than usual. All-in-all, it appears that this church has received continued coverage over 3 years time; it was captured by the Palestinian Authority in 2007, damaged by Israeli air strikes in 2009, and its leaders have been the subject of multiple assassination attempts, at least one of which was successful. The building itself is also six stories tall and half a century old, which is a considerable feat for the region.   — C M B J   07:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge per above thoughts. Arguments to keep above read to me like "sure, it's not notable...but...". One can list any number of qualifiers beyond "it's not notable" to attempt to argue for inclusion, but I tend to get stuck at the "it's not notable" part. It's not Wikipedia's place, nor is it AfD's place, to confer notability on a subject. Notability exists, or it doesn't. In this case, it appears that the latter is more accurate. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, that's a misquotation at best--no such fallacious argument was ever expressed or intended. Rather than debate, I'll just go ahead and incorporate sources into the article.   — C M B J   07:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough -- wasn't my intent to quote, let alone misquote, but I can definitely see how you might have thought that was my intent. Sorry about that! Either way, I'll look for your sources. It sounds like an interesting topic, so I'd love to see reason to include it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source you just added is not non-trivial coverage of the subject of this article. It's non-trivial coverage of the victim of a kidnapping and murder. The victim happens to have been "one of Gaza Baptist Church's leaders." I, and anybody reviewing this (I should hope), would be looking for non-trivial coverage of the actual subject, not non-trivial coverage of persons related to the subject. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That source actually goes into very lengthy detail about Massad and the circumstances surrounding the church, not just Ayyad's murder. It is non-trivial coverage of the primary subject by any reasonable definition. But anyways, hold your horses; I'm not done.   — C M B J   08:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Horses held! I stand by my earlier assessment of the article, but others might deem it coverage of the subject, in this case. Either way, and again, I think it's a damn interesting topic, so I hold my horses with something like anticipation in this case :). Best case scenario for any AfD is the addition of fine sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm done for the night. I need some sleep.   — C M B J   10:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, because you did a sterling job of looking for and adding sourcing, but I still see a lack of reliable sources that focus on this particular topic. Reliable sourcing that mentions this topic in relation to the focus of a given article doesn't pass muster. That said, this is a bit of a close call. I wouldn't be surprised to see this ultimately judged Keep, but I am very hesitant to vote Keep myself. I look for multiple, reliable sources contributing non-trivial coverage on a given topic. I don't see it here. I see a lot of coverage of this particular topic, but the vast majority of it is incidental in nature, and not directly concerned with the topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, the lines between trivial and non-trivial are a lot less blurry than what we see here. But seeing as the available material is of acceptable quality and goes into a reasonable level of detail, I'm confident in my position within the boundaries set forth by WP:N as contextually interpreted with WP:IAR taken into consideration. Nonetheless, I respect your position and discipline.   — C M B J   02:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This note represents nothing new to add to the discussion in any meaningful way other than to acknowledge that the above was some of the most reasonable, non-argumentative, productive debate and response I've ever had with someone adamantly voicing an opposing opinion in an AfD debate. I stand by my opinions, but I can see that consensus is clearly going in the opposite direction and, frankly, my vote above perhaps ought to be a weak delete, rather than a firm one (not that that makes much of a difference). This is hardly a case where the subject is devoid of reliable sourcing. It's a case of how one interprets "non-trivial," really, and I'm comfortable with seeing my own interpretation apparently run counter to consensus, in this case. Regardless, props to CMBJ for not getting rankled by my antagonistic view! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the Dallas Baptist news is not a netural news source, neither is Christianity Today or any other vowedly conservative evangelical christian news source. What are we left with? All of the other sources don't cover the Church in detail, thus why a passing mention in an article about something else is not a claim to notability. It still fails WP:GNG.--TM 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nom appears to labor under the misapprehension that a news source needs to be neutral to be reliable. It does not. Many political journals both right (The National Interest) and left (The New Republic, The New York Review of Books) of center and many newspapers both right The Wall Street Journal and left The Guardian of center are considered WP:RS (reliable sources) because there news pages are generally accurate as to the facts, although their political slant may lead the ones on the right and the left to cover different stories. The same applies to Christian sources like Christianity TodayAMuseo (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Again, this establishment is connected with a series of violent events which may be considered notable, and the coverage focuses on those events. The establishment is not notable in and of itself. Being six stories tall as evidence of notability? Come on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the architecture and design of a church building typically is a focal point in our articles. In fact, some of them go into vivid detail. Just look at Stanford Memorial Church.   — C M B J   20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But the article under discussion here, does not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge1000 sums my point up with more directness and economy of language than I can apparently offer. In short: agreed! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The repeated use of a place of worship as an observation post by both belligerents in a civil war is not history? A governmental advisory that a religious leader must seek safe harbor in a foreign nation is not history? The establishment of the first Protestant church in a predominantly Sunni region is not history? Three arsons, three shootings, and an airstrike are not history? A religious congregation losing 80 percent of its membership due to violence is not history? At what point then, may I ask, do you propose that we define a series of events as being history?   — C M B J   21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call me eccentric, but I do regard the BBC, the Associated Press, MSNBC, Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post as independent. Although the BBC is government funded, unlike the press in Gaza, it is not government controlled. That is part of the tragedy of Gaza. More to the point, it is not required that sources be independent but, rather, that they be reliable, which Christianity Today and many other Christian news sources are.AMuseo (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But none of them are interested in the Church as a building or organisation Where's the analysis of its history and origins? Where's the in-depth coverage? The BBC source is about a pastor, the MSNBC & Haaretz (via AP) and the JP sources are about the murder of Rami Ayyad. This information is all suitable for the Palestinian Christians article, but citing every source that merely mentions "Gaza Baptist Church" is not, for me, the way to show notability. Bigger digger (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you note say more about the church than the fact the someone worked there. They do not provide any information about the Church at all. To reverse your question: how is this Church notable? Bigger digger (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity Today (cite 5) goes into detail about the pastor of the church, how the church has been shelled four times by Israeli mortars, and the church's new six story building which has the only Christian library in Gaza and will soon have a breast screening clinic. If this were a 6 story church in the United States there wouldn't even be an AfD because of notability, even without this church's recent history, related violence, and uniqueness. VictorianMutant (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:VictorianMutant is correct. The proposed deletion of this church is an example of Wikipedia:Systemic bias; "If this were a 6 story church in the United States there wouldn't even be an AfD because of notability, even without this church's recent history, related violence, and uniqueness"AMuseo (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny that you accuse me of systemic bias. I've created hundreds of articles about places in the world you have never heard of nor ever bothered to write about. Israel-Palestine is one of the most written about countries in the world on Wikipedia. Nice strawman. What this really is about is a consistent POV in the articles written by certain anti-Palestinian articles who in fact claim to be fighting systemic bias.--TM 15:30, 26 September 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gaza_Baptist_Church&oldid=1137872811"