Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Baptist Church of Hoover, Alabama

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 delete. Consensus that the article does not meet the

First Baptist Church of Hoover, Alabama

First Baptist Church of Hoover, Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable church, fails

• Delete No references, no evidence of notability, promotional in tone. 78.26 (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and 78.26. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 17:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article appears to be substantially copied from the church's website here. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I've no doubt that this church has generated enough public interest to garner at least some media attention since 1954, most of those sources are either offline or behind the paywalls of newspapers that do not participate in Google News. The best I was able to find is this: (Skelley, Martha (May 6, 2009). "First Baptist Church of Hoover saves the day for seniors luncheon". The Birmingham News. Retrieved October 27, 2011.) which isn't even really about the church. Also, the article in its current state is borderline copyvio but that's a matter for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete As the first baptist church in the City of Hoover, Alabama (Alabama's 6th largest city) it deserves to be included; that alone is notability. If other Hoover Baptist churches like Hunter Street Baptist Church and Shades Mountain are included then so should First Baptist Hoover. I don't find the information provided to be "promotional in tone" any more than the information provided for other churches. A list of charter members, church officers, and pastors is no more promotional than a list of former U.S. Presidents. The fact the information may have been downloaded in part from a church website doesn't mean the information is incorrect or false. Perhaps Wikipedia should amend the policies to prohibit all churches from being listed unless it is like the 16th Street Baptist Church were the young colored girls were killed in the 1960's. Since when is an official church website not considered references. The Alabama Baptist Association has many references about First Baptist Hoover, but such information is not available online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.229.42 (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you may lack a fundamental understanding of Wikipedia's

organizations. Churches can be notable for many reasons, including being historic, being listed on historic registers, having been the site of significant events, being extremely large, etc. But being the "first (insert denomination here) church" in any one of the many hundreds of thousands of communities in the world is not a reason for notability here. Altairisfar (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Hoover Historical Society lists First Baptist Hoover as a historic church in the city. Therefore it is historic to the area. In an area where the City of Hoover, Alabama is younger than the church. Hunter Street Baptist Church uses Wikipedia for recruit purposes by listing it. It seems biased to prohibit other churches in the same area from having this tool for recruiting the Lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.229.42 (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what private websites are for. See

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Altairisfar (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Question Why is there no assertion of notability in the introduction? Has this church won zero awards and has zero independent coverage in secondary sources regarding any kind of notability? Dualus (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2011 (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.