Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATrueChurch


 * 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  18:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

ATrueChurch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, self-sourced. Fails WP:ORG. Does not appear to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. WA Post 2005 article linked mentions it only in passing. Does not appear to meet WP:NONPROFIT either. -- Dual Freq (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This one is not as clearcut as the nom makes it seem.  The Washington Post and ATrueCult references mean it's within spitting distance of the GNG, so I'm going to explore a bit more. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This one is not as clearcut as the nom makes it seem.  The Washington Post and ATrueCult references mean it's within spitting distance of the GNG, so I'm going to explore a bit more. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep in light of this book, published by Thomas Nelson, which mentions Fish and A True Church. That plus the Washington Post article meet GNG.  There are also at least a dozen other Christian Websites such as patheos which have critiques of the movement.  It appears the article is substantially true and verifiable, even if the notability is borderline. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage" would mean that Washington Post story would be about the church in question. That article is about Billy Graham quoting Fish and mentioning ATrueChurch in passing, only to describe Fish. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I was going to vote to delete, but perhaps they are worth keeping as notorious schismatics. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:05, 30 July 2016 (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.