Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of 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. There is some disagreement as to the reason to keep. Some editors believe this topic passes WP:NONPROFIT, albeit barely perhaps. Others make an WP:IAR 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Can't find sources to support conclusion this meets WP:ORG. 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 depth of coverage are out there somewhere, but they are not cited in the article and I can't find them. Novaseminary (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. 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 The Baptist river: essays on many tributaries of a diverse tradition and Handbook of denominations in the United States. StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment How can you claim that all 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 any more depth of coverage than a directory listing) how does that meet the substantial 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). Novaseminary (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Denominations are generally notable because they almost always pass WP:NONPROFIT. This one certainly does, given the number of books discussing the denomination. -- 202.124.72.148 (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 required for N/ORG/NONPROFIT? ”Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability” says WP:CORPDEPTH. Novaseminary (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NONPROFIT says "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 sources." This is clearly met by a denomination whose scope is the US as a whole and which appears in multiple book and news references. -- 202.124.74.39 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:SPS. We are back to the Handbook directory info and one very minor mention. Novaseminary (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:NONPROFIT being clearly satisfied. -- 202.124.73.188 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment So for those following this at home, the following three refs, and only these three, are what the keepers think meet WP:ORG (WP:NONPROFIT): The Baptist River, CT news brief, & Handbook of denominations in the United States. These don't strike me as coming close to meeting the guidelines. Just about any Parent-Teacher Association or homeowner association could meet this level of coverage. Novaseminary (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment, I don't think you're reading WP:NONPROFIT 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 organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." That is clearly the case here. StAnselm (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with StAnselm. There are also other news articles associated with individual churches joining the ARBCA. -- 202.124.73.9 (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But we have no third-party reliable source confirmation of any 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 a national scope. Novaseminary (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? They are a church denomination. They hold church services (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 (Christianity Today) 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. -- 202.124.74.36 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

They (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 this organization 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. Novaseminary (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If the article's claims are true this is a denomination; albeit a modest one. CErtainly notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But the standard is whether third-party sources cover it, not the truth of the article. or do you think the mere act of being a verified denomination is some alternative way to meet WP:N? Novaseminary (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The threshold for inclusion is WP:V verifiability. The next step to inclusion is prominence&mdash;Wikipedia editors have built a consensus that all denominations (meaning only those that are WP:V verifiable) have sufficient prominence 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 diversion of editorial resources.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment 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.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No AfD action required This topic is valid as a denomination that we want to cover somehow in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think all denominations are notable. This one is small, but documented in the existing references. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that all denominations, if verifiable, are notable and within the Wikipedia mandate. Jance day (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:N? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novaseminary  (talk • contribs)  03:22, 9 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment 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 reliable third party sources, the subject may not meet the notability guidelines. In order to meet either the non-profit notability guidelines or the general notability guidelines 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. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - 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 WP:IAR. There is no mandate that an inferior Notability Guideline should trump the Policy (higher level law) of IAR. Carrite (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep under WP:IAR. Clearly an encyclopedic topic, treated encyclopedically. This belongs in Wikipedia. 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. Carrite (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am amazed that an AfD with six "keep" notes and no delete votes can be relisted. I think this is a serious waste of people's time. AfDs are understaffed enough as it is. StAnselm (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - But WP:IAR assumes some sort of reasoned analysis as to why particular policy or guidelines should be disregarded (the reason "a rule prevents you from improving" WP). "Clearly encyclopedic" begs the question 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 (WP:NOTAVOTE) isn't sufficient for an IAR jusitification either. Now, at least some have argued this particular org meets WP:NONPROFIT, but for reasons given above I don't think so and that ignores the lack of substantial coverage in any case. Novaseminary (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Several editors !voted keep on the basis of the specific guidelines in WP:NONPROFIT, 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 Encyclopedia of American Religions – provides substantial coverage). And apart from the nom, every !vote has been "keep." -- 202.124.74.18 (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Several other editors who used the term "encyclopedic" presumably mean that Wikipedia should subsume the content of subject-specific encyclopaedias. Since encyclopaedias of religion cover denominations (e.g. the Encyclopedia of American Religions, cited in the article), so should Wikipedia. -- 202.124.74.18 (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article is about a notable and verifiable non-profit organization and appears to be listed in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - church denominations are inherently notable. There will be plenty of offline sources available. --He to Hecuba (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - is it snowing yet? -- 202.124.74.179 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - while not all denominations are notable, one with 70 churches would be considered so. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Whether or not all denominations are notable, this one is, as reflected in the above discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 14 February 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.