317:
denominations are notable, no matter how small or inconsequential? Is this based on any policy or guideline (which represent the combined consensus of the community, of course)? To my mind, that statement turns N and ORG on their respective heads. Even if listed in handbooks of denominations (without
563:
activity that the group engages in, let alone third-party coverage confirmaing that the "scope of their activities is national" as NONPROFIT calls for. That members exist in various places within a nation (and we have no third party confirmation of that, either) does not mean their activities are of
710:
to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Whether or not that inclusion requires a stand-alone article is a detail, but it is a detail that means that there is no case in which we want to delete a redirect for lack of notability...and that bringing denominations to AfD to challenge notability is a
371:
The ref you added is another one-sentence bare mention. So we now have two bare mentions and a directory. Would any org that gets 23 gBook hits (many of which are WP rip-offs, one which is a directory, and two one sentence mentions) meet ORG? Are we abandoning the substantial part of the coverage
443:
The remaining book source says that they are a
Reformed Baptist church, and expands on what those words mean, the CT news snippet says that they have the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) as a doctrinal standard. That already tells us a great deal about their activities. I see
525:
correctly. It suggests notability with nationwide scope AND verifiable information. Now, a PTA is never going to have nationwide scope (though it might be notable under other guidelines). But the guideline says nothing about the depth of the coverage - it merely says "Information about the
492:
277:
399:
Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: (1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale; (2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable
201:. Zero gNews archive hits and only directory information in an handful of gBooks hits indicates this small organization founded in 1997 (according to the article and its website) fails the significant coverage aspect of ORG/N. Maybe sources meeting the usual standard for
957:. Clearly an encyclopedic topic, treated encyclopedically. This belongs in Knowledge. There is no mandate that we parse the universe for so-called "reliable independent sources" for things that should be kept on a per se basis, as is the case here, in my opinion.
1020:
and is not such a reason (might as well say "keep it just because" or "useful"). Nobody has explained why denominations should be per se notable regardless of coverage or why we should have WP articles about any org with such scant coverage. And a majority vote
166:
582:(of a specific Reformed Baptist type). We have third party confirmation of that. They include 70+ individual churches across the USA (the individual churches may or may not be notable on their own). We have third party confirmation (
734:
IMO, Baptists, like all independent associations (or brotherhoods) of churches, do not accept that they are denominations. For our purposes here, the existence of a verifiable general assembly is the equivalent of a denomination.
420:
But non third-party sources don't confirm anything about their activities, other than their creation in 1997. Also, keep in mind that NONPROFIT is part of ORG. And the one mention you added was just removed by St.Anselm for failing
100:
95:
705:
The threshold for inclusion is WP:V verifiability. The next step to inclusion is prominence—Knowledge editors have built a consensus that all denominations (meaning only those that are WP:V verifiable) have sufficient
104:
1083:. Several other editors who used the term "encyclopedic" presumably mean that Knowledge should subsume the content of subject-specific encyclopaedias. Since encyclopaedias of religion cover denominations (e.g. the
87:
895:
the organization needs to be the subject of multiple reliable third party sources. Simply claiming that the subject is notable without explaining how it meets the notability guidelines is a fairly weak argument.
615:
actually does as an organization, especially that is of national scope, even if we know who its members are. Not every organization with members from around the country conducts activities of a national scope.
586:) that the initial 24 ARBCA churches were "from around the country" and I see no grounds for doubting the more detailed list of addresses across the USA on the ARBCA web site. They are certainly national. --
611:(meaning this organization) do not hold church services. The organization's members (which, per the website are entirely autonomous) hold church services. I don't see third-party sources that indicate what
160:
60:
argument that denominations of this scope are inherently notable, regardless of whether there is evidence that they meet the usual guidelines. But in any case, the consensus is clearly to keep.
269:. I think all denominations are notable, in part because there are so many handbooks of denominations. This is no different - Google Books clearly indicates notability. ARBCA is mentioned in
91:
876:
I have relisted this debate because the current keep comments do not address the deletion concerns. The article is up for deletion because the nominator feels that, due to a lack of
322:
part of substantial coverage? How does the other single, bare ”mention” you noted above? (And this group doesn't even claim to be a denomination anyway, just an association).
222:
127:
244:
83:
75:
918:- The relisting rationale is weak. If consensus is to keep because a topic and its treatment is encyclopedic, as is clearly the case here, that should be sufficient under
1056:, and explained quite clearly how the two parts of that guideline were satisfied (for example, because of the 3rd party sources cited in the article, one of which – the
681:
Did you really mean to
Wikilink to WP:V above? WP:V verifiable material includes more than "third-party sources". So, no, IMO what you've cited is not the standard.
181:
787:
148:
1194:
1177:
1160:
1137:
1118:
1096:
1073:
1038:
998:
966:
943:
908:
864:
828:
799:
778:
761:
744:
720:
690:
668:
642:
625:
595:
573:
554:
540:
512:
457:
438:
411:
385:
362:
331:
295:
258:
236:
214:
69:
142:
138:
1106:- Article is about a notable and verifiable non-profit organization and appears to be listed in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. --
1152:
449:
354:
188:
526:
organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." That is clearly the case here.
1088:
1065:
824:
587:
403:
546:
804:
So we throw out ORG if we decide an organization is a denomination and for no other reason? How does that come close to implementing
402:" This is clearly met by a denomination whose scope is the US as a whole and which appears in multiple book and news references. --
1016:
particular policy or guidelines should be disregarded (the reason "a rule prevents you from improving" WP). "Clearly encyclopedic"
154:
17:
990:
532:
287:
271:
372:
required for N/ORG/NONPROFIT? ”Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability” says
545:
I would agree with StAnselm. There are also other news articles associated with individual churches joining the ARBCA. --
984:
delete votes can be relisted. I think this is a serious waste of people's time. AfDs are understaffed enough as it is.
475:
So for those following this at home, the following three refs, and only these three, are what the keepers think meet
496:
1213:
757:
740:
716:
686:
40:
1156:
906:
862:
453:
1029:, but for reasons given above I don't think so and that ignores the lack of substantial coverage in any case.
1025:) isn't sufficient for an IAR jusitification either. Now, at least some have argued this particular org meets
358:
407:
1092:
1069:
638:
591:
1133:
1034:
820:
664:
621:
569:
550:
508:
434:
381:
327:
210:
1209:
500:
36:
769:
I think all denominations are notable. This one is small, but documented in the existing references. --
633:-- If the article's claims are true this is a denomination; albeit a modest one. CErtainly notable.
1190:
812:
753:
736:
712:
682:
1185:- Whether or not all denominations are notable, this one is, as reflected in the above discussion.--
1128:- church denominations are inherently notable. There will be plenty of offline sources available. --
1053:
1026:
897:
885:
853:
795:
774:
522:
480:
445:
394:
373:
350:
202:
174:
53:
1022:
994:
634:
536:
291:
52:. There is some disagreement as to the reason to keep. Some editors believe this topic passes
1173:
1129:
1030:
962:
939:
816:
660:
617:
565:
504:
430:
377:
323:
254:
232:
206:
65:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1208:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
488:
484:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1017:
842:
1186:
752:
This topic is valid as a denomination that we want to cover somehow in the encyclopedia.
1168:- while not all denominations are notable, one with 70 churches would be considered so.
1148:
791:
770:
205:
are out there somewhere, but they are not cited in the article and I can't find them.
1009:
985:
954:
919:
892:
877:
707:
527:
476:
422:
353:. This one certainly does, given the number of books discussing the denomination. --
282:
198:
57:
1169:
1115:
958:
935:
250:
228:
61:
884:, the subject may not meet the notability guidelines. In order to meet either the
495:. These don't strike me as coming close to meeting the guidelines. Just about any
121:
805:
656:
648:
845:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
786:- I agree that all denominations, if verifiable, are notable and within the
318:
any more depth of coverage than a directory listing) how does that meet the
1111:
1107:
349:. Denominations are generally notable because they almost always pass
272:
The
Baptist river: essays on many tributaries of a diverse tradition
1202:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
559:
But we have no third-party reliable source confirmation of
1060:– provides substantial coverage). And apart from the nom,
655:
a verified denomination is some alternative way to meet
117:
113:
109:
173:
578:
Is this a joke? They are a church denomination. They
197:
Can't find sources to support conclusion this meets
852:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
649:
whether third-party sources cover it, not the truth
84:
Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America
76:
Association of
Reformed Baptist Churches of America
922:. There is no mandate that an inferior Notability
223:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
1087:, cited in the article), so should Knowledge. --
245:list of Christianity-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1216:). No further edits should be made to this page.
651:of the article. or do you think the mere act of
493:Handbook of denominations in the United States
278:Handbook of denominations in the United States
1012:assumes some sort of reasoned analysis as to
187:
8:
521:Wait a moment, I don't think you're reading
243:Note: This debate has been included in the
221:Note: This debate has been included in the
1052:on the basis of the specific guidelines in
429:directory info and one very minor mention.
242:
220:
56:, albeit barely perhaps. Others make an
980:that an AfD with six "keep" notes and
7:
711:diversion of editorial resources.
503:could meet this level of coverage.
1085:Encyclopedia of American Religions
1058:Encyclopedia of American Religions
24:
886:non-profit notability guidelines
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1195:07:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
1178:21:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
1161:13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
1138:12:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
1119:06:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
1097:06:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
1074:06:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
1039:04:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
999:04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
967:03:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
944:03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
909:03:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
893:general notability guidelines
865:03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
829:03:22, 9 February 2012‎ (UTC)
70:18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
800:22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
779:14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
762:23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
745:23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
721:23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
691:23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
669:22:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
643:20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
626:22:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
596:07:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
574:06:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
555:05:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
541:04:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
513:04:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
458:23:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
448:being clearly satisfied. --
439:22:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
412:21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
386:14:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
363:08:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
332:21:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
296:20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
259:13:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
237:13:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
215:04:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
934:(higher level law) of IAR.
1233:
1064:!vote has been "keep." --
497:Parent-Teacher Association
1048:. Several editors !voted
1205:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
313:How can you claim that
750:No AfD action required
501:homeowner association
425:. We are back to the
647:But the standard is
580:hold church services
584:Christianity Today
564:a national scope.
1114:
1018:begs the question
928:should trump the
874:Relisting comment
867:
832:
815:comment added by
788:Knowledge mandate
613:this organization
485:The Baptist River
261:
248:
239:
226:
203:depth of coverage
1224:
1207:
1110:
904:
860:
851:
847:
831:
809:
249:
227:
192:
191:
177:
125:
107:
48:The result was
34:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1214:deletion review
1203:
898:
854:
840:
810:
754:Unscintillating
737:Unscintillating
713:Unscintillating
683:Unscintillating
134:
98:
82:
79:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1230:
1228:
1219:
1218:
1198:
1197:
1180:
1163:
1153:202.124.74.179
1141:
1140:
1122:
1121:
1100:
1099:
1077:
1076:
1042:
1041:
1002:
1001:
970:
969:
947:
946:
912:
911:
901:Alpha_Quadrant
870:
869:
868:
857:Alpha_Quadrant
849:
848:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
781:
764:
747:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
674:
673:
672:
671:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
516:
515:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
450:202.124.73.188
415:
414:
389:
388:
366:
365:
355:202.124.72.148
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
299:
298:
263:
262:
240:
195:
194:
131:
78:
73:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1229:
1217:
1215:
1211:
1206:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1181:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1124:
1123:
1120:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1089:202.124.74.18
1086:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1066:202.124.74.18
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1000:
996:
992:
989:
988:
983:
979:
975:
972:
971:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
949:
948:
945:
941:
937:
933:
932:
927:
926:
921:
917:
914:
913:
910:
907:
905:
903:
902:
894:
890:
887:
883:
881:
875:
872:
871:
866:
863:
861:
859:
858:
850:
846:
844:
839:
838:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:Novaseminary
814:
807:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
782:
780:
776:
772:
768:
765:
763:
759:
755:
751:
748:
746:
742:
738:
733:
730:
729:
722:
718:
714:
709:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
692:
688:
684:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
635:Peterkingiron
632:
629:
628:
627:
623:
619:
614:
610:
597:
593:
589:
588:202.124.74.36
585:
581:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
562:
558:
557:
556:
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
531:
530:
524:
520:
519:
518:
517:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
489:CT news brief
486:
482:
478:
474:
471:
470:
459:
455:
451:
447:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
409:
405:
404:202.124.74.39
401:
396:
393:
392:
391:
390:
387:
383:
379:
375:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
344:
333:
329:
325:
321:
316:
312:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
297:
293:
289:
286:
285:
280:
279:
274:
273:
268:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
246:
241:
238:
234:
230:
224:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1204:
1201:
1182:
1165:
1144:
1130:He to Hecuba
1125:
1103:
1084:
1080:
1061:
1057:
1054:WP:NONPROFIT
1049:
1045:
1031:Novaseminary
1027:WP:NONPROFIT
1013:
1005:
986:
981:
977:
973:
950:
930:
929:
924:
923:
915:
900:
899:
888:
879:
873:
856:
855:
841:
811:— Preceding
783:
766:
749:
731:
661:Novaseminary
652:
630:
618:Novaseminary
612:
608:
583:
579:
566:Novaseminary
560:
547:202.124.73.9
528:
523:WP:NONPROFIT
505:Novaseminary
481:WP:NONPROFIT
472:
446:WP:NONPROFIT
431:Novaseminary
426:
398:
395:WP:NONPROFIT
378:Novaseminary
374:WP:CORPDEPTH
351:WP:NONPROFIT
346:
324:Novaseminary
319:
314:
310:
283:
276:
270:
266:
207:Novaseminary
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
54:WP:NONPROFIT
49:
47:
31:
28:
1023:WP:NOTAVOTE
880:third party
320:substantial
161:free images
1187:Epeefleche
708:prominence
1210:talk page
1112:(User:90)
925:Guideline
878:reliable
792:Jance day
771:DThomsen8
251:• Gene93k
229:• Gene93k
37:talk page
1212:or in a
1151:yet? --
1147:- is it
843:Relisted
825:contribs
813:unsigned
491:, &
427:Handbook
400:sources.
128:View log
39:or in a
1170:Bearian
1149:snowing
1145:Comment
1081:Comment
1046:Comment
1006:Comment
976:. I am
974:Comment
959:Carrite
936:Carrite
916:Comment
882:sources
732:Comment
473:Comment
311:Comment
167:WPÂ refs
155:scholar
101:protect
96:history
62:Rlendog
1116:(talk)
1108:Andrew
1010:WP:IAR
1008:- But
991:Anselm
978:amazed
955:WP:IAR
953:under
931:Policy
920:WP:IAR
533:Anselm
477:WP:ORG
423:WP:SPS
397:says "
288:Anselm
199:WP:ORG
139:Google
105:delete
58:WP:IAR
1062:every
653:being
182:JSTOR
143:books
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
1191:talk
1183:Keep
1174:talk
1166:Keep
1157:talk
1134:talk
1126:Keep
1104:Keep
1093:talk
1070:talk
1050:keep
1035:talk
995:talk
963:talk
951:Keep
940:talk
891:the
821:talk
806:WP:N
796:talk
784:Keep
775:talk
767:Keep
758:talk
741:talk
717:talk
687:talk
665:talk
657:WP:N
639:talk
631:Keep
622:talk
609:They
592:talk
570:talk
551:talk
537:talk
509:talk
454:talk
435:talk
408:talk
382:talk
359:talk
347:Keep
328:talk
292:talk
275:and
267:Keep
255:talk
233:talk
211:talk
175:FENS
149:news
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
66:talk
50:keep
1014:why
827:)
561:any
499:or
483:):
315:all
189:TWL
126:– (
1193:)
1176:)
1159:)
1136:)
1095:)
1072:)
1037:)
997:)
987:St
982:no
965:)
942:)
889:or
823:•
808:?
798:)
790:.
777:)
760:)
743:)
719:)
689:)
667:)
659:?
641:)
624:)
594:)
572:)
553:)
539:)
529:St
511:)
487:,
456:)
437:)
410:)
384:)
376:.
361:)
330:)
294:)
284:St
281:.
257:)
247:.
235:)
225:.
213:)
169:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
68:)
1189:(
1172:(
1155:(
1132:(
1091:(
1068:(
1033:(
1021:(
993:(
961:(
938:(
819:(
794:(
773:(
756:(
739:(
715:(
685:(
663:(
637:(
620:(
590:(
568:(
549:(
535:(
507:(
479:(
452:(
433:(
406:(
380:(
357:(
326:(
290:(
253:(
231:(
209:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
124:)
86:(
64:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.