Talk:West Bromwich Network Church

[Untitled]

Hi there,

just wanting to make a comment about the proposed deletion of the page West Bromwich Network Church.

Please understand that there are 15,000 churches in the UK. The Church of England is the largest grouping of churches by a long way, and the things we do are often of national significance, especially to the Christian community.

Fresh Expressions is a movement arising out of The Mission Shaped Church, the best ever selling report by the CofE looking at new ways of being church in the 21st century.

West Bromwich Network Church is a very significant project, of natioanl significance within the Church of England, and the wider Christian community. There are very few projects like this, with full funding and the deployment for a minimum of 7 years, to explore new models of church.

I apologise if the initial article was too much like an advert, but please do not let that distract from the notability of the article and the work of West Bromwich Network Church.

I have attempted to make the article less ad like and more encyclopaedic. I hope it is more in line with the guidelines now.

Thanks, Evan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revd ev (talk • contribs) 21:06, 29 April 2007

Not Encyclopedic

This still reads like an ad for a church? For example, This is not really a fair comment as community building and relational faith are core components to WBNC's vision and strategy. You're defending allegations (which, btw, you need to cite) in an encyclopedia? That's completely inappropriate. You cannot say, "Critics say x, which is unfair because y" because you compromise a NPOV.
Jason (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph in criticism section

This article needs balancing, or it is going to be deleted. It reads like an advert, but could be a good example of the current debate around the nature of church. Yes, I admit that this new section hasn't got footnotes, but such could be found for each statement in it. Its meant to foster debate around which this article could be improved. Do you really think the article is better without such debate? Hyper3 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The section as written was completely original research and written in an unencyclopedic tone. I have no problem with a rewrite that is sourced. It takes statements for granted, asks rhetorical questions and has other issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Will keep working on it. Hyper3 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

speedy deletion proposal

Please outline your case for speedy deletion. Hyper3 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The case for speedy deletion was outlined on both the tag itself, which you have removed: "It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." and in the edit summary in which I added the tag: "no rewrite in over a year since tagging as advert". In fact, the article has been tagged as an advert since November 2007, and still reads like one. Its tone is inappropriate, and it's not at all clear how those few references which are cited support the assertions made. For example: 0

It is unlikely that the cultural location of the church signified by organisational aspects and reference points is the only reason for church decline. The church like any other organisation, is a complex environment with many relevant factors.[Edwin E Olson & Glenda H Eoyang Facilitating Organization Change: Lessons from Complexity Science (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,2001) 51 ]

Do Olsen and Eoyang demonstrate that "It is unlikely that the cultural location of the [West Bromwich Network] church signified by organisational aspects and reference points is the only reason for church decline. The church like any other organisation, is a complex environment with many relevant factors", or merely that "[a] church like any other organisation, is a complex environment with many relevant factors"? And in either case, the whole section is waffle; and to what degree is it "unlikely"? Does a book published in 2001 say anything about a church founded in 2007 - or is that just Original research?

Conversely, is the assertion that "[the Church's vicar] Cockshaw makes the common mistake of believing that he has a 'clean sheet'" really supported by the reference given, or is the claim that that is supposedly a "common mistake" a biased comment? The word "sheet" doesn't even appear on the cited page.

The whole article is a mess, has been for too long; and we would be better rid of it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, quite a lot of work has been done on the article since the tag was put up. The article provides a working example of a Fresh Expressions project, an important experiment funded by notable bodies; it provides a concrete arena of debate about the nature of ecclesiology that is relevent to current debates in the charismatic and evangelical church. Debate as to the appropriateness of the critique is welcomed, in order to make it a better article. I have taken out the statements made by the original contributor that are not encyclopedic, and would be glad to recieve more help to do so if there are others. This is an active page, and I wold perefer it was improved than scrapped. The page as it stands now is not just an advert, but includes both positive comment and critical analysis, which was totally missing from the original form. Hyper3 (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that "work has been done" on the article; but it has not addressed the above points. The development may be "an important experiment", to some, but that's a subjective view, and is not currently supported by independent, verifiable references. And while the article may "provide a concrete arena of debate", that's not what Wikipedia is for; nor i it for "critical analysis". Over a year has been allowed for improvements, and insufficient have been made. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Help me with knowing how best to proceed. I will be able to find a few more references from the Fresh Expressions arena. I believe I can make the point that this church is an important example of that, and find a reference that specifies this. I may not be able to find much more on the church itself, unless some more exists I'm not aware of. The critique section responds, to the general assertions made by the church, by using and footnoting other people's writing, making the point that for each assertion, there is a wider debate as to their accuracy (complexity, leadership theory, the use of models, etc). This is not original research, just bringing into play the published work of those whose area this article touches upon. What more would be required to bring this up to the appropriate standard? I'd appreciate your reply, as this is all a learning curve for me. Hyper3 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the above-linked page on original research, especially the section on synthesis. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." I'm thinking that this permits the raising of questions with multiple sources, as long as there is no conclusion drawn from them. In other words, showing there is a wider debate would be permissable; advancing a conclusion would not. " If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion" - therefore a conclusion other than showing there is a wider debate is not permisable. "...or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." - when the subject is multi-disciplinary, as church planting always is, then there are a number of possible discipline sources to draw from. However I see that it would be better to draw from church planting books, as this is the broad area. I think this can be done for this article, and will look at a couple of books later. Am I getting this analysis right? Hyper3 (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to Delete

I can find no information on the web to suggest that this church is still up and running. I can find no active social media, and the website looks like it was last updated many years ago. If not to be deleted, then the article needs major overhauling - as reads as if the church is still new-ish (when it's actually about 20 years ago it started). arossmorrison (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)