Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apostolic Catholic Church (2nd nomination)


 * 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. There are valid concerns regarding lack of reliable sources, however there is not clear consensus to delete, and most commentators have indicated that the article needs work rather than deleting. Work done on providing adequate sources would be helpful, and might prevent the article being nominated for deletion again in future  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Apostolic Catholic Church
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has not improved. It needs a deletion, or to be trimmed back and folded in to Independent Catholic Churches. I propose that it be nominated for deletion again, as it is not a source of any actual information, let alone accurate or verifiable information (due to the dearth of references: what few there are are not reliable (WP:RS), or are unverifiable, or are not readable: what is cited is self-verified WP:SPS or similar).

As far as I can tell, from the repeated citing of the same online "reference", it lacks notability. It's not encyclopedic (although superficially Wikified), and is poorly written, as an apologetic advertisement, without a single sentence that isn't POV-pushing or at best uncited: no actual knowledge is lost by deleting something in such a state.

Edit: it actually doesn't make sense in many places, either, to an unsalvageable degree:


 * Representative Example from the Lede: "It is a conservative church in that it observes the proper attire for men and women.[vague][citation needed] These[which?] practices are criticised by other Christian churches as being inappropriate to manifest holiness.[citation needed] Especially during the sacrifice of the Holy Mass, veils and decent dresses are worn by women while men wear white shirts and trousers, but mostly white soutanes. Vulgar and liberated attire such as mini skirts and jeans by women and sando shirts by men are strictly prohibited and should not be worn at any time. These ancient church traditions were removed after the Vatican II Council by the Roman Catholic Church but were all retained by the Apostolic Catholic Church to show-off its orientation.[4]" - the one reference is to a site that summarizes Vatican II, from a very biased source:


 * Example: "Thirty odd years on the 'Aggiornamento' [Vatican II] is still fermenting, the fresh air of the Holy Spirit still blowing, a self-destructive 'Civil War' still raging .... But His Peace will come to us all ..." - nothing about the ACC.

From reading the talk page, it appears that a member/founder was heavily involved in making it. JohnChrysostom (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Other than the links to the church's own web site, all the other sources cited either don't mention this church or are broken links. It's difficult to find independent sources about this church because its name is a common phrase (often used in reference to other churches). I am also skeptical of the article's claims that this church has 1 million, or 5 to 8 million members, because the church's web site doesn't suggest that the church has more than one shrine in the Philippines and one parish in the United States. Admittedly, it's possible that a Filipino religious denomination could have a large membership and still escape my notice. However, the supporters of this article will need to improve it significantly, including providing better sources, before I could consider keeping it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of WP:RS is not (or should not be) a ground for deletion where rthe subject is notable, as this one clearly is. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But I'm disputing whether it is notable. I haven't seen any sources (independent or otherwise) that suggest that it even has as many as 10 parishes or congregations.--Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's where I'm coming from. As far as I can tell, it has a house church called a "cathedral", a few house churches in the Phillipines, a few self-styled priests and Patriarchs, and possibly one house-church in America. There are many non-notable congregations in America that have as many or more house-churches and house Bible studies, etc. I can find no verifiable number on the size of this congregatiomination, so I must assume it's quite small or active only in a few (or one) localities, as evidenced by the pastoral letter cited. JohnChrysostom (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The link to an independent website supporting the 1,000,000 members claim doesn't seem to work. But this indicates that it is certainly notable - a pastoral letter concerning the ACC read out in all churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Novaliches in April and May 2008. StAnselm (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing we can establish through non-self published sources is that 1) this group exists, it's led by a self-styled Patriarch Teruel, and was founded by that man's mother. This article, if not deleted, should be merged to be a sub-section in Independent Catholic Churches. I've been to parishes (Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus) where they've read a letter concerning a new small Church opening to deal with overflow in the parish, an FSSP priest arriving that's going to start celebrating the EF Mass to please traditionalists, or a visit by Scott Hahn to one of the Churches in the diocese: does that mean that every new Church, new celebrant priest, change of the form of Mass, or even every single visit by Scott Hahn is notable? JohnChrysostom (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You get pastoral letters from your bishop regarding visits by Scott Hahn? StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tacked on to the routine pastoral letters (i.e. ones that regularly are issued at solemnities), yes, as far as I understand it (it may not be a part of the pastoral letter itself?). I can't find an archive of them online, but I do know that specific pastoral letters have been issued:
 * 1) about a specific church (Holy Family) with a priest starting to celebrate the Latin mass (in communion with Rome) since the current EF church was overcrowded,
 * 2) the differences between SSPX and the Catholic Church (in the same letter as [1] above)
 * 3) about the opening of new churches, and
 * 4) a general warning about "cults" (fundies) that were standing outside of churches handing out anti-Catholic literature and cursing Papalism, etc. (separate from letter [1] above).
 * That doesn't make the new priest celebrating the Latin mass notable, nor does it make the opening of the new parish notable, nor does it make the local branch of "Fundamentalists United for the Bible Against Romanism" (FUBAR) notable, except in list form in an article on "Diocese of Columbus", if that (only for new churches). Following similar reasoning, it stands that this should be merged in to Independent Catholic Churches, as not being notable except as an Independent Catholic Church, just as the local branch of FUBAR isn't notable, except in the general sense that anti-Catholicism is. JohnChrysostom (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article needs rewriting, but the source provided by StAnselm and this news article show that this is a notable denomination. Unfortunately the bulk of the sources are in Tagalog, but that is no reason to delete the article, although editing for NPOV is clearly needed. -- 202.124.72.112 (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- However badly written the article may be and however lacking in independent citations, this is not an article about a sinlge congretation, but about a denomination. As such it is certainly notable.  Occidental users may need to be reminded that English language sources on developing countries are liable to be scarce.  They should not expect the same level of sources as they would on a denomination of a similar size in USA or England.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is a review of the sources currently cited in this article. (The numbers given are the current footnote numbers, which are subject to change.)
 * http://www.acc-ingkong.com/ is the church's own web site.
 * http://uw.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/microsites/TheCorrespondents/TheCorrespondents/tc04052004sekta.htm is a page where the connection times out and the page doesn't load.
 * http://www.acc-ingkong.com/content/view/1/2/ is another page from the church's own web site.
 * http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txs/secondvc.htm doesn't mention this church.
 * http://acc-ingkong.com/content/view/2/4/ is another page from the church's own web site.
 * http://www.acc-ingkong.com/content/view/65/41 is another page from the church's own web site.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Episcopal_Polity&action=edit&redlink=1 is a broken link to another page here on Wikipedia. The correct link, Episcopal polity, doesn't mention this church anyway.
 * http://paleo-orthodoxy.com/ is a domain for sale which no longer has any content.
 * http://www.acc-ingkong.com/content/view/4/8/ is another page from the church's own web site.
 * http://www.acc-ingkong.com/content/view/6/5/ is another page from the church's own web site.
 * http://www.nccphilippines.org/index_files/Page519.htm is a "404 Not Found" page. In fairness, though, another page can be found to replace it.
 * http://en.allexperts.com/q/Anglicans-943/Saints-Anglican-Church.htm doesn't mention this church.
 * Same URL as #2 -- the connection times out and the page doesn't load.
 * http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/news/11/21/08/churches-unite-rh-bill is a dead link. However, the correct link appears a couple of lines below.
 * Of the remaining unnumbered links, the "ACC home" is the same link to the church's own web site. "ABS-CBN news" is (which should replace note 14), which is acceptable for use as a source. "Apostolic Catholic Church (Sacrifice Valley) report" is the same broken link in notes 2 and 13 above. And the external link is the church's own web site once again. So that makes 8 links to the church's own web site, 2 links that don't mention this church, 5 links (cited a total of 7 times) that are broken, defunct or otherwise non-functional, and 1 link to a relevant independent source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for breaking it down so that it's easy to see for everyone who looks here. That's what I saw, but was too lazy to do anything other than say, "all the refs are either WP:SPS, unreliable, or unreadable [broken or not in English]". JohnChrysostom (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but that's not the issue. We all know the article is terribly bad, but (per WP:BEFORE), the issue for AfD is what sources exist, and the two sources in the discussion above are not in that list. Nor are the numerous Tagalog sources. -- 202.124.73.22 (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody has linked to even one Tagalog-language source yet. And of the two additional sources linked in this discussion, is a news article which mentions this church but is principally about the patriarch's brother (who headed a different church) being killed, and  is a reprinted pastoral letter being posted on a Multiply.com blog which may not have any official standing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per StAnselm and 202.124.72.112. Meets WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the latest consensus is that we want to cover any verifiable denomination.  This source, the National Council of Churches in the Philippines, lists the Apostolic Catholic Church.  This source has good detail.  When I went into Google Books, I went through 10 pages and found two likely sources, but the text was restricted.  There is a Brazilian Apostolic Catholic Church (ICAB) with a million members, also there is a church or churches from the mid 1800s that get most of the hits.  Given that we want to cover this denomination, any other issues are editorial decisions that do not require AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The source you link to is written by the organization, and is not independent.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A church which seriously claims one million members, even if it really doesn't have that many, is clearly notable. Arguments that the article is badly written don't wash, as AfD is the place to get articles deleted because they're non-notable not because they're badly written. The question is: "is this organisation notable enough for an article?" (the answer is clearly yes), not "is this article well-written enough to continue to exist in its present form?" (the answer is quite possibly no). Even cutting all but the first few sentences is a possibility and still doesn't make the article non-viable (see WP:Stub). Saying it's unsalvageable is drivel of the worst deletionist-serving variety. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that the state of this article is seriously crappy, but that doesn't mean that the subject is not notable. Even if the article has to be gutted to be kept, I think even having a stub in place is better than nothing at all. As has been mentioned before, this church claims to be an entire denomination with over a million followers, and this confers notability, even if it is only true to an extent. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per the actual analysis of the sources provided above. Coverage must obviously be independent to prove notability. And, contrary to what has been said here, all churches are not inherently notable. Comments like "A church which seriously claims one million members, even if it really doesn't have that many, is clearly notable" or that we "cover any verifiable denomination" are outright wrong and against the consensus of the GNG and WP:ORG and give away the weakness of the arguments made. Likewise, coverage that simply mentions the subject in a trivial context doesn't establish it as passing the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the claim that was made was that all denominations are notable, not all local churches. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I know, sorry for being unclear. I used churches in the sense of denomination, but the point still stands the same.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, guidelines are not immutable and inflexible and do not supersede common sense and actual opinions! They are guidelines! My comment was not "outright wrong" as you so charmingly put it, it was my opinion. And contrary to popular deletionist belief ("GNG is heaven-ordained and we cannot possibly go against it; opinions which differ from guidelines are the stuff of the devil; any argument which does not endlessly quote guidelines is weak"), that's what we come to AfDs to give. Tell me exactly what would be the point of having AfD discussions otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, this (disregarding supporting points and guidelines) is the crux of my argument: anyone can start a house-church and claim 1 000 000 members, especially if he has family and that extended family owns a few houses in two different countries (which, based on my reading, seems to be what this is, based on the Pastoral Letter). No independent source gives any mention of the number of adherents. My opinion has been swayed to a merge to Independent Catholic Churches (as per my statements above, being notable as an ICC), and I do see some validity in the, "let's cut it down to a stub" train of thought that the keep voters are giving. I would also like to point out, as a reader above did, that "Apostolic Catholic Church" is nearly impossible to verify in references, as there are dozens of worldwide Christian Churches (including the two original and largest, the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church,) that use the title in some way. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 16:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now lette us all do pray for an Admin who giveth our own creede more credence than that of the othere guyye; who decideth, for the Deletionifts, based on ftrengthe of Argument; for the Inclufionifts, bafed on ftrengthe of Confenfus. Up untill this AfD I cofidered myfelf an Inclufionift, concludinge that no Knowledge could be lofte, by Deleting an Advertifement. :-D St John Chrysostom view / my bias 15:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't consider myself to be either. I'll delete non-notable drivel as readily as the next person. But I am getting tired of the deletionists' increasing attempts to get stuff deleted which is not, in my opinion as an experienced editor, non-notable by claiming that the Wikipedia community has somehow endorsed their own narrow views of notability by endorsing guidelines. Guidelines are just that - no definition of the word "guideline" inside or outside Wikipedia allows for the deletionist argument that a guideline is somehow set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Where is the evidence that this denomination even claims to have 1 million members, much less actually has 1 million members? There are two different membership estimates in the article -- 1 million, and 5 million to 8 million. Both of them are sourced to the same source, http://uw.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/microsites/TheCorrespondents/TheCorrespondents/tc04052004sekta.htm, the page where the connection times out and the page doesn't load. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's referenced in a circular manner, as far as I can tell. Abs-cbn times out no matter what (even the main site), but one can access it in the Google cache. However, trying to search for "abs-cbn news tc04052004sekta.htm" (the original URL of the reference) gives a bunch of references to the Apostolic Catholic Church, using Wikipedia's citation of that broken link as their source. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 05:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. As a matter of policy, the situation is clear. WP:V provides that: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Those who support keeping the article have provided no such sources, even though the WP:BURDEN of proof is on them. Instead, unrebutted analysis has shown that the sources currently known are not independent. Articles in Wikipedia must at all times be verifiable, that is, they must contain references to reliable sources that allow readers to independently verify the article's content. Because this article does not meet this core requirement even after a 7-day-AfD, it must be deleted.  Sandstein   08:12, 29 January 2012 (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.