Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel Hall
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 redirect Article history will be preserved if anyone wants to mrege additional content. W.marsh 16:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gospel Hall
All edits to this article in the past year have been by COI SPAs adding content and the occasional NPOV editor attempting to neutralise it. It has no references and no assertion of notability. I prodded it. 142.177.73.65 (talk · contribs) removed the tag. — Athaenara ✉ 13:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic, and a non-notable neologism. The COI doesn't help either. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to re-creation if sourced. I think it's pretty accurate in its description of the flavour of Christianity practised in places called gospel halls (i.e. Protestant evangelical nonconformist, enough budget to afford a building but not enough for major church). But unless this categorisation is backed up by third-party sources, it's OR. Tearlach 22:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This could become a real article if it were re-created with appropriate content and reliable sources. I have no objection if someone wants to fix it up before the close of the AfD. The issue of neologism would have to be addressed, though. EdJohnston 04:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mild Keep: I don't think much of this article as written either, but disagree about the neologism aspect. I've known the term (and the brand of Christianity they contain) for years. And there is confirmation of the term out there [1], [2] as well as many others, including references in scholarly journals going back to the 1920s. [3].
Yes, it needs to be sourced, but judging from a quick search I don't think it would be very difficult to do, though will anybody do it in time?!!--Slp1 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC) - Keep The term is not a neologism, I've found independent websites on Google that explains it. One of them is here.[4]--Kylohk 09:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - My impression was that most Gospel Halls were Christian assemblies of one or other variety of Plymouth Brethren. These are properly described as denominations, but there is little central organisation. It is certainly not a neologism. The article is not well written, but that is a common defect, which should be cured by a 'clean up' or similar tag. I see little case for deletion. If the decision taken is to delete, then it should be replaced with a redirect to Plymouth Brethren, perhaps that is the best solution anyway. Peterkingiron 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have undertaken an edit on the adticle and placed the following commetn on its Talk page:
In view of the current WP:AFD discussion, I have tried to tidy up the article, seeking to provide an objective description. My source is essentialy personal experience and what I ahve been told anecdotally from having been a member of a church which was formerly a Brethren Assembly (though not called a Gospel Hall), and from what I have been told by others in the movement. I appreciate that this is strictly WP:OR and thus not a wholly acceptable source for WP, but I cannot do better. I hope that this contribution has dealt with the WP:POV issues. However I am not sure that this article would not be better being merged into Plymouth Brethren. Whether it should be will depend on whether any one can provide a source to prove that there are Gospel Halls that do not form part of any of the Brethren movements.
- However, I am not convinced that there is much in this that is differnet and better than what is in the Plymouth Brethren article. My considered opinion is that the best solution is probably merge and redirect to Plymouth Brethren, possibly adding the further sources identified by other contributors to this discussion. Peterkingiron 11:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have undertaken an edit on the adticle and placed the following commetn on its Talk page:
- I support the merge and redirect suggestion. Especially with the re-write it seems the overlap is substantial. It does not seem appropriate to delete as this appears to be a small but significant piece of Christianity. I tried to source but had difficulty identifying appropriate sources because of the specialist nature of the subject and most mentions of the term. We really need an expert's help to distinguish what sources are reliable and what POVs are present in them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to cover the subject (in some ways it makes our coverage even more important). -- Siobhan Hansa 13:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
