Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiochian Catholic Church in America


 * 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Antiochian Catholic Church in America

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

does not meet notability standards Jbuchman (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as first paragraph or so is a copyvio of, while having nothing related to it on Google News and Google. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Copy on source linked in entry above is from Wikipedia, not vice-versa (I am the author of said copy, and I know, therefore, that it first appeared here).  Second, when I Google "Antiochian Catholic Church in America" I get over 900 hits.  Third, see link at bottom of article.  The Church has been written about several times in Knoxville, Tennessee's major newspaper.  Fourth, this article has been here for over three years.  How is it that its subject now becomes non-notable?  Fifth,  In the interests of full disclosure,  while I acknowledge that I am connected with this Church; it should also be noted that Mr. Buchman was once as well, but has now left the Church and become a critic for personal reasons which are not relevant here.  Sixth, while there are many Independent Catholic/Orthodox Churches, all of which are quite small, the ACCA is unique, AFAICT, in embracing the theology that it does, and in the way it worships, according to the Syriac Rite.  Further, it is fairly unique in that it is a traditional Church which ordains women.   Seventh, the Church has had an entry in the standard reference work, the Encyclopedia of American Religions, since the Church became an independent jurisdiction back in 1991. --Midnite Critic (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Have personally visited all of the ACCA communities, and am aware of their work in their communities, as well as the unique nature of their jurisdiction. Cautiouswader (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Keep"""The mere fact that they chose to be Indepent Catholic makes them signifiant and notable.Swimmer1207 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Not so fast... Delete If it's a keeper, it needs better sources. I see only one WP:RS linked in the article, and that's to an opinion page that simply mentions one ministry of one congregation.  I do not see WP:ORG met with what's present in the article.  If my church has 15 people, can I declare it an independent Catholic church and get my own Wikipedia article, when the individual congregation would be unquestionably non-notable? Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, per this search I only see one mention outside what's been referenced in the Knoxville News Sentinel. However, each of the five KNS references known to Google news are from one (apparently guest) columnist.  My initial suspicion is that he's associated with the church, making him non-independent. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

*Delete Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to the above: If this article is deleted, then logic would dictate that many of the other articles in the "Independent Catholic Churches" category should go as well.  Many of these articles seem to be based solely upon entries from the above-mentioned Encyclopedia of American Religions, a standard reference work found in virtually every library in the United States (it has its own Wikipedia article, linked in the ACCA article, as does its editor, J. Gordon Melton), and which has an entry for the Antiochian Catholic Church in America;  however no one is questioning the notability of the subjects of these articles, even though the ACCA is comparable in size (and "notability") to these other Churches.  So why kill this article, at this time, and not the others?  To answer Jclemens' question:  no.  Some sort of independent Protestant congregation?  Certainly.  But one of the pillars of Independent Catholicism is the claim to valid Holy Orders.  This implies a direct historical connection via episcopal ordination (ordination of its bishops) back to Rome and/or one of the Orthodox patriarchates that is simply not present when one or more people get together to form an independent congregation outside of this movement.  --Midnite Critic (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That would be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to above comment: The first part is, I suppose, but we're not talking about sitcom characters here. We're talking about a Church that is part of a more general phenomenon that, while admittedly existing on the fringes, has anticipated the addressing of questions which have more recently begun to be issues in more mainstream Churches.  For example, certain Independent Catholic Churches were the first, among Churches claiming the Apostolic Succession of their bishops, to ordain women.  --Midnite Critic (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's generally accepted that subjects covered in paper enyclopedias should be covered by Wikipedia. I've also added another source. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree. If the articles defenders can find a single other independent reliable source which mentions the church in a non-trivial manner, I'll change my vote. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to above I appreciate that, Jclemens. Admittedly, sourcing is an issue, given the semi-underground nature of the many disparate jurisdictions of Independent/Old Catholicism.  This is discussed in the following from a retired History Professor at NE Illinois University: Gregory Holmes Singleton's Interim Research Notes on Independent/Old Catholics.  Given that, I agree with DGG’s comment below.  The entry in a standard reference, paper encyclopedia should be sufficient for notability.  Beyond that, what is available in terms of other sources has to do with bishops (Vilatte, Mathew, et. al.) and Churches which are predecessors of the ACCA.  Little of this is available online, but includes sources that Singleton mentions, as well as, more recently “Flesh of our Brethren,” written by Abba Seraphim, an English Coptic (indigenous Egyptian Christian) prelate (whose jurisdiction was once within the pale of Independent Catholicism/Orthodoxy) which looks at Vilatte and his successors.  In terms of online sources which may or may not be “trivial,” the ACCA’s website (such as it is), is included in Church links collections among those of more mainstream Churches on several reliable sites which are obviously unrelated to the Church, including the World Council of Churches, Hartford Seminary, Virginia Tech:  Local Congregations and Ecumenical Initiatives, Listing of Official Denominational Websites,  Religions - Christian - Middle East Areas Adjacent to the Balkan Peninsula (Also India).  Finally, while it is not "independent," I offer an article published by an ACCA priest in an online theological journal: "Apostolic Authority in Dogmatic and Disciplinary Canons" --Midnite Critic (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep with respect to small religious sects that do not have significant presence on the internet, we need to be very liberal about accepting sources for notability. The presence in the encyclopedia is significant enough here. We are not able to judge doctrinal claims for distinctness or importance, though. DGG (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2008 (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.