Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brethren Reformed Church


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Brethren Reformed Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Un-noteworthy church among many in the world. Wikipedia is not a guide to churches or church advertising portal. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm certainly leaning delete on this. I can't find third party sources.  This is a special case in that it seems to be its own church and denomination. If it has a wide enough following, it might be notable, but I'm not seeing anything to show that right now. Ryan Vesey 04:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Independent churches aren't any more notable for being independent; if they were, every Baptist church, tons of Pentecostal churches, and most self-described fundamentalist churches would be under serious consideration for notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. "Independence" is not really a meaningful distinction when it comes to churches. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom, not notable. ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Pardon my original research, but I grew up not all that far from where this church is and I can assure you there is absolutely nothing inherently notable about an "independent" church. Southern Ohio is part of the Bible belt, I am sure you could find dozens of similar churches within 50 miles of this one. Nothing about this one seems exceptional. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said there was anything inherently notable about an independent church. I just meant to state that if the belief system this church held was widely followed, that would create notability.  A Methodist church is not notable by virtue of being methodist, a church that is an ofshoot of a denomination or a new denomination might be.  That being said, I find nothing to show that this one is. Ryan Vesey 19:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "it seems to be its own church and denomination" All independent churches are in such a situation. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Founded in 2007, it has hardly had time to become notable and nothing that is said in the article gives the impression that it is anything but a "run-of-the-mill" church community Jpacobb (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:SNOW, almost as if a simple WP:PROD could just as easily have handled this... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 29 September 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.