Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Christ (Assured Way)


 * 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. definitely enough consensus to keep the article JForget  01:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Church of Christ (Assured Way)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Yet another sect within the LDS movement. No evidence of notability offered. &mdash; RHaworth 07:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the fact that this sect exists at all as a distinct, separate church within the LDS movement (proven by a photograph of its HQ's and a link to its official certificate of incorporation) is "notable" enough to warrent inclusion in this encyclopedia. What, exactly is further required of this sect to attain enough "notability" to warrent inclusion here?  Do they need to eat fire?  Sacrifice dogs and cats in their parking lot (God forbid!)?  Stand on their heads?  (They do none of these things, BTW!)  The "notability" here is that they exist at all, as a separate, distinct sect within the LDS movement.  I would understand if a long, detailed article had been composed about what is, admittedly, an extremely minor sect.  But that is not the case here; the article is rather short and to-the-point.  To dismiss the Assured Way church so cavalierly as "yet another sect within the LDS movement" and accuse them of having "no evidence of notability" (when their existence is notable enough) is incorrect and seems to me (rightly or wrongly) to show a hint of bias.  Do we write off each and every minor religious sect out there, however unique and distinct, merely because they lack numbers or name-recognition?  Or is it just the minor LDS sects we treat that way??? - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I have completed this nomination and restored the article as well as its Talk page because the discussion at User talk:Prsaucer1958 indicated to me that the creator might not want it deleted after all. --Pgallert (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep If a collective is notable, then each member of it is also notable. Since the List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement,  Latter Day Saint movement, and History of the Latter Day Saint movement have established the notability of these small churches, it stands to reason then this article as well as the other articles about other LDS movement churches should be created and maintained. This analogus to articles on tv shows  - each notbale show has subarticles on each character.  Many, if not most, of these sects or their founhders have articles of their own.  Is there going to be a wholesale purge of these articles  because a single editior objects to them while several reviewers (Surv1v4l1st, Artist4Echo) say that they past muster. The claim that "the assurred way is just another sect" is immaterial because there is no Wikipedia rule that limits the number of notable subjects of a particular category that can be covered.  Prsaucer1958 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment Since my name was referenced here, I do feel the need to address what was said. My comments about a sect being worth mentioning was within the context of the List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement article.  As said article is a historical cataloging of organizations within the LDS movement, I think we should cast a wide net and include most organizations on the list.  That does not necessarily mean that any group mentioned would automatically meet notability for a separate article. Many do not and information about the sect is contained within the article of their founder or some other related topic.-- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 14:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep They do appear to be a real group and their organization may prove to be notable. That said, all but two of the references appear to be from church publications and not "third-party, independent, reliable sources."  If the sourcing can be corrected with outside sources, I think it is worth keeping.  If not, not. -- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A word on "third-party, reliable sources". I understand and accept the "third party" thing, and understand its relevance and importance here.  Certainly if I were not the one who had personally visited these people and photographed their HQ's, I'd wonder, too, if the whole thing wasn't some kind of scam.  I get that.  Problem is, there just isn't much out there, right now, on this particular sect (I've looked!).  But I did find (and offer) two outside references.  Not much, I admit; but it is something.  In terms of "reliable", why is it so difficult to let any given church or sect describe itself?  Who is better to describe their beliefs and practices than their own publications?  Why are these "unreliable" (as seems to be insinuated here)?  Again, I understand the desire, and even the need, for third-party sources to verify that the sect's published beliefs/practices are indeed what they actually adhere to--but how many third-party sources can one reasonably expect to concern themselves with this tiny sect?  And with those who do, I would be willing to bet "good money" that practically all of them will simply repeat what the sect says about itself.  One might reasonably counter that this demonstrates the "non-notability" of this sect, to which I counter that however tiny, it is still a distinct, separate denomination within the Latter Day Saint movement.  PRSaucer1958's comments, above, are pertinent to this point. - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment With respect to citing their own literature when describing their doctrines, there is absolutely no problem there. I agree with you that it is an essential source of information for a religious group and am not implying that it is somehow unreliable.  It doesn't, however, provide much in the way of establishing notability with respect to an organization.  The sources we so far (corporate filing, Adherents.com, photograph) more that prove that it is a real sect, so I don't think anyone doubts that.  As to finding sources on a smaller sect, all I can say is "I feel your pain."  As someone who contributes to religious articles on smaller organizations, I know how hard it is to do the research.  I would like to see this article stay up long enough to be improved.  On that note, since you are in the area, could the church split, organizing, and activities have been covered in the local media (newspaper, etc.)?  It might be worth looking into.-- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply I have contacted Apostle Leonard Draves of this organization, and asked him if there are any third-party sources for this article beyond the two I've already quoted. I'm hoping to hear back from him in the next day or two (God-willing!). - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Excellent. Look forward to what you find. -- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 16:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - P.S. I wish to apologize for blanking the article page earlier this morning. This isn't much of an excuse, but I recently buried two close friends of mine, and one way I was trying to cope with my loss was to "divert myself" via writing on Wikipedia.  However, my personal "fuse" isn't quite what it should be (and usually is), and I let my emotions get mixed up and get the better of me once this dispute arose.  This was uncalled for, and I do apologize. - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry to hear about your loss. That is never, ever easy.-- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Thank you. I appreciate your comments. - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this. Sorry to hear it. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I just now noticed your reply. My apologies for not getting back with you sooner; thanks very much for your condolences. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that Wikipedia editors believe that they are using Modus Tollens: such as, If Subject A is notable, then it will have independant sources:(N implies Q). There are no independant sources:(not q). Therefore, Subject A is not notable:(not A). However, I believe that statistical syllogams are really being used because no editor has access to all sourcesa: Most notable churches will have independant third party sources. X does not have several third party sources. Threfore, X is an not-notable church. The statement that "it is just another LDS movement church" is evidence for a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid of the accident kind - a form of deductive logical fallacy. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this group has a third party citation, "Missouri Secretary of State Business Entity Search, Non-Profit Corporation, Domestic, Charter No. N00566777."  Given this, this group doses exist.  If it is removed for not being "notable" then most groups listed in List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement would not be "notable".  Additionally the same thing would apply to a huge number of denominations in all other religions that are small, who have wikipages.  I think it would be a bad idea to limit groups listed on Wikipedia, just because they are small.  I think the standard should be that a WP:Verifiable independent source shows they exist.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete Speedy keep. I would certainly tend to view all bona fide denominations as notable. Some extremely small Australian denominations have articles, but for Australia inclusion in the book Religious Bodies in Australia is probably a minimum criterion for notability, and no books seem to mention this group. It's confusing though, with so many different organisations called "The Church of Christ With the Elijah Message." I would also like to see some indication of the number of people in this group, or at least of the number of congregations (is it more than 1?). I would also like confirmation that W. A. Draves did indeed found this church in 1994, since he apparently died on 28 June of that year, and the article on him doesn't mention it. In fact, the subject of this article seems to have been founded in 2004. I can't help but feel two different groups may be being confused in this article. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I only know what Mr. Draves' son, Leonard Draves, told me at the church HQ's when I interviewed him. He stated that his father had founded this sect in 1994, after a leadership struggle in the original EM organization, and I took the man at his word.  No confusion, there.  I'm awaiting a reply from Mr. Draves on the question of number of members and congregations, and location of congregations (all of which I asked him for in my email).  Of course, all of this is "original research," but you'd find the exact same thing in any book that's likely to mentiont his sect (meaning it would be obtained the exact same way I am getting it: by asking them). In terms of notability, why does inclusion in any published reference work in and of itself have to be mandated as a criteria for notability, if the sect or denomination in question can be otherwise independently verified as existing (as Artist4Echo has pointed out)?  Abingdon's Handbook of Denominations in the U.S. and Canada has long been seen as one of the primary reference guides in this country on denominations, yet it only mentions about eight or nine of the 100 or so LDS sects.  Does that make the others "non-notable," and thus inelligible for inclusion in what ought to be the most comprehensive compendium of knowledge the world has ever seen?  With all due respect to what was written above, I think not.  But that's just my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has policies on notability and original research that certainly apply here. As to this group, The Journal of Latter Day Saint History may provide the required 3rd-party source. I would also ask: has the group been mentioned in any local newspapers? That would at least be something. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the local papers--nothing, at least not so far. I think, however, that a third-party source has already been located; indeed, two of them: Adherents.com, and the MO Secy. of State's certificate of incorporation for this church.  No offense intended, but I think those two things--especially the last--are indeed "something" in and of themselves.  And this whole "notability" thing is a huge part of what's being argued here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Adherents.com is really an independent third-party source in this case, since it seems to rely mostly on a letter by Leonard Graves. The certificate establishes that the group has existed since 2004, but that doesn't necessarily make them notable. How about The Journal of Latter Day Saint History? That's one obvious third-party source. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that I am NOT trying to start an argument here, but what do the rest of Adherents' entries rely on? Self-reporting, just like with Draves. There's no agency that I know of out there that goes out and counts the number of adherents in any particular religious group. Abingdon, Adherents.com: all of them rely mostly upon self-reporting for any details they give about a denomination: beliefs, membership statistics, etc. You acknowledge that the Assured Way Church exists, based upon their certificate of incorporation, so what's the "notability" issue? I've seen articles on this encyclopedia about footballers that nobody's ever heard of or cares about (beyond their own local fans); what's so "notable" about them? And yet, I do not in any way oppose their inclusion in this work, which I've always seen as striving to be the most comprehensive collection of knowledge ever assembled--no matter how minute any particular subject might prove to be in the overall scheme of things. But what makes some footballer with a two or three sentence article in Wikipedia more notable than a separate, distinct denomination of a religious movement, whose existence has alredy been demonstrated by at least one reliable third-party source (MO Secy of State)? Why is that not "notable" enough??? - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the notability criteria, which requires more than simply existence. And there's no evidence in the article that the organisation existed between 1994 and 2004. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that. Please don't think I'm trying in any way to get "personal" here--that's not the case at all.  I do understand where you are coming from, and you raise some legitimate points.  As I said above, if I hadn't interviewed two of their apostles myself, and visited their church hq's, I might be raising the same issues you are.  And I understand that the personal interview, etc. constitutes "original research," and is thus inadmissable as evidence in this case.  So I guess we just trash an article on an entire sect of the LDS movement because it doesn't satisfy a set of criteria that are not flexible enough to take into account situations like this, where there just isn't a viable body of third-party sources on a subject.  Never mind that the subject has been clearly demonstrated to exist, and be distinct within its category (sects of the LDS movement).  The Assured Way Church exists, but it will "fall through the cracks," anyway.  And Wikipedia, in my opinion at least, is the loser.  I understand the rules, and I know you didn't write them, and I hold nothing of what you've said against you.  And as I said, if I were in your shoes, I'd probably be saying at least a portion of what you have said.  I just think it's a shame, that's all. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly prefer to see the article improved rather than deleted. We probably should have articles on every denomination. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I just don't see how this article can be improved much beyond what it is now, given the dearth of sources we have on hand at the present time. It seems it will have to stand or fall "as is," unless Mr. Draves gets back with me (which he hasn't yet) with some third-party sources we don't know about or haven't found. I am going to try to get to the Community of Christ library in the next few days, and see what I can find there, if anything. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * New Developments: An update: I spoke with Apostle Leonard Draves this morning, and explained what we need (a reliable, viable third-party source to verify the existence and pertinent details of his organization--preferably, more than one such source). He's involved in a church conference right now, but says that will end Wednesday, and he'll try to get back with me by the weekend.  He mentioned some lady from England who interviewed him and said she'd write an article on them, but he doesn't know what became of that intention, as he never heard back from her (if I understood him correctly).  I do know that there's a published work by historian John Hamer that speaks of this church, and while neither Apostle Draves nor myself has a copy, I'm hoping to get by the Community of Christ temple library later this week and see if they have one.  That would be an excellent source, if I can procure it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to be worried about possible breaches of WP:COI/WP:NPOV here, in that the subject of the article shouldn't be selecting the sources used. As I said, you might like to look at The Journal of Latter Day Saint History for 1994/95. There have also been some recent books on LDS history (such as the one you mention) that might have relevant information. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The existence and history of this church is referenced in a book I edited with Newell G. Bringhurst, entitled Scattering of the Saints: Schism within Mormonism, published by John Whitmer Books in 2007. The church even appears in a diagram on the book's cover. I added references to the wikipedia article and I also made some corrections.  The Elijah Message church story is fairly complicated because the Hedrickites are somewhat prone to schism compared to the other branches.  However, this church exists and neither I myself, nor Newell, nor the article's author Jason Smith, nor Steve Shields have any special connection to it; we're just writing about its history and its relation to other Hedrickite churches.John Hamer (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That book reference, and the fact that most of my questions have now been answered, is enough for me to change my !vote to "keep." I still have questions about some aspects in the article (I'm not sure the organisation founded in 2004 has any congregations in Australia, for example), but that isn't an issue for this AfD. -- Radagast 3  (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, in it's current form, the article is probably a speedy keep under WP:SNOW. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The addition of the book references also addresses my primary concerns. Changed from a Weak Keep to Keep.-- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 14:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As a person who knows next to nothing about this whole process, I have a question: what happens now? Who decides if this article is a "keep," and when do they decide it? I'm not going to mess with the AfD tags in any way, as that's "above my pay-grade," but I'd just like to know. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion. An admin will eventually close it, and an uninvolved editor can do so too (which rules me out). However, the standard 7 days are not quite up, so give it time (there are also quite a few older unclosed AfD's in the queue). With all !votes except the original nominator being "keep", there is no doubt what the final decision will be (it would need a majority of "delete" !votes to be deleted). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's best to be careful with headings here, since it can mess up the parent page at Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 27. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Like I said, this is all pretty new to me (though it probably shouldn't be, as I've been on Wikipedia for about three years now; I should know these things!).  Thanks for the info, and I removed the heading.  Hopefully no damage was done.  Thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was fine -- I had already downgraded it to an OK level. And this article is pretty much under control now: time to think about the next one. :) -- Radagast 3 (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2010 (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.