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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Richmond, VA congregation. It clocks up five Google hits. Pilatus 14:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This may be a legit church, but it reads like PRcruft. Stu 20:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this Wikipedia thing. I guess I should have read more about the process and rules. I thought I knew enough to start. I am trying to chronicle a new phenmenon in Christianity that has no leader ang goes by or has different names: 'the post modern movement', 'Emergent Church', 'organic church' and the list goes on. Some of these names are dubbed on them from within and some from without. This movement is something that I saw that was not represented in the Wikipedia database of knowledge. In a movement with no leaders or unified body, made up of individual expressions,the individual expressions are part of the informational structure of the movement. Example: like when covering the Association of Vineyard Churches individual people, like John Wimber and Lonnie Frisbee are mentioned, and individual churches are mentioned like Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship. I guess I started with the individual pages first and not the movement pages first. I guess I did it ass backwards - J. D. Hunt

P.s. I'm rusty in my acedemic writing, sorry it reads so poorly.

p.s. I apoligize I couldn't find stuff on emergent church, I guess because I was using caps E vs e in looking for emergent, but other catigories i've tried come up nil'.

Hi there, articles on individual congregations are usually removed quickly, as they tend have little to say for themselves and are usually part of larger movements. By the way, there is an entry for the Emerging Church, why not contribute to that one? By the way, signing up for a username is fast. Pilatus 21:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ^talk 22:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

based on his personal views stated on his website could could ceejayoz be biased against Christianity

• Comment J.D. Hunt (writing under 68.57.33.91) could you please explain this comment? Stu 02:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mentioned signing up, I initially wasn't sure what that was about. I will sign up. I am not affiliated with any of these groups other than an aquaintence. I thought the Richmond, VA aspect of the emergent church, as well as, other regions in the U.S. needed to be chronicled, as they are all unique facets of the whole movement. - J. D. Hunt

• Delete, nn local church. MCB 01:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against people with a liberal position. I myself am a libertarian. But, as we all know, every one of us has a point of view (or a.k.a a bias). We should try not to use it when writing, which is a hard thing for anybody to do, no matter how principled we are. my experience and study has shown that typically people with a liberal bias tend to dislike Christianity. It is posible for bias in this Wikipedia Proposition. Sorry, I wasn't logged in at the time of the comment, but that is because it was my girlfriend on another commputer in our network reading the comments. Thanks for assuming. (J. D. Hunt 02:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment Since you are new to Wikipedia, I really have to sugesst that you read through some of the base rules that we have on the, including the article Wikipedia:No personal attacks Stu 13:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am now reading the rules, when i have time. By the way, to state that you believe someone has a bias towards a topic, based on their self discription and private statements, is not a personal attack it's an observation. An attack would be to call somebody 'stupid' or an 'idiot'. All I did was to make an observation based on my opinion. In discussion forums are peoples opinions against the rules. Is there only partial freedom of speech in here. (J. D. Hunt 06:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Response to Jdhunt Again, I strongly suggest that you read the rules regarding No personal attacks and the proper places for these types of discussions, which are usually held on talk pages. This particular page doesn't exist to discuss your perception of someone elses suppossed political beliefs or their qualifications to voice an opinion on the merit of the article at hand; this AfD page exists to gather votes for the article itself. Stu 13:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the No Personal Attacks Section, and it caused me to have more questions. Here are my questions. I'm not saying either scenario are my case (and I believe they are not). Here I go. What do you do if you really think someone is bringing a bias, based on their views, in their actions towards an issue or administration duty? (or abuse) And, secondly, what if someone thought they were being persecuted, based on their beliefs, by another member or group? (or abuse) Is there a way to take recorse reguarding that kind of abuse, or does wikipedia allow that, because it considers stating something like that a personal attack. What are the rules and where are the lines drawn. (J. D. Hunt 14:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• delete advertisement for a nn local church. Pete.Hurd 19:50, 4 November 2005 (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.