Talk:Woods Memorial Presbyterian Church

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Woodschurch (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Deacon of church responsible for Wikipedia committee.)

Deletion?

Pinging Meters. This page has, from what I see from examining its edit history, has never had independent reliable sources to supports its content, and in the last 24 hours has been turned into a promotional piece about this church and its programs by someone seemingly associated with the church, Woodschurch, making it little different from its Facebook page. Googling it just seems to bring up listings of the church's location and unremarkable events that occur there. I concede that given the age of this church and its somewhat large membership that it may be notable, but in my opinion if reliable sources exist for this the page should be started fresh. Thoughts? 331dot (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to decide what to do with it. Tagged as unsourced since 2007 or 8... there's no point in using the tags if nothing is ever done. I agree that there is a reasonable chance that this is a notable institution, but the existing article is mostly a promo piece. If by "Started fresh" you mean gut it and rewrite then I agree. (At first I thought you meant delete and recreate.) I din't find many good sources either, but here's one on their home building activities: http://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/local/md-church-group-makes-building-homes-its-mission/article_c8ea8d24-1c5b-11e5-81ca-ffc04f2a268e.html Meters (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some of the most blatant promotional parts(and the ones that seem to me to be least likely to be able to be cited) 331dot (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed it further in the hope that Woodschurch will get the point, read up on our policies and add some reliable sources (the one above is a start), so that the article can be retained in some form. I've also suggested that they might find Wikipedia:Teahouse a useful place. I'm happy to AGF on the conflict of interest aspect, for now. —SMALL JIM 19:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]