Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. RL0919 (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Small and largely irrelevant group which is unrecognised by any major Christiand denomination. Most of the sources are self-sources and those who are not don't justify an article on Wikipedia. I move for deletion Karma1998 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity,  and United States of America.  Shaws username  .  talk  . 14:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I motion to keep, because it is referenced in The Detroit News, the Archdiocese of Detroit, and Aleteia. These news articles provide the argument that this group is relevant, despite its size. At that rate, some U.S. settlement articles which have only less than 100 residents should be culled by that same measure; they won't, however, because despite their seeming irrelevance, they are properly sourced through the U.S. Census Bureau. Only 2 sources are self-sourced in this article. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, per significant coverage in the following sources:
 * (this was a syndicated article that appeared in many US papers)
 * Jfire (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jfire (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jfire (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jfire (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, Some notability is implied by it being a historical landmark: --Panther999 (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as a historical landmark and the coverage detailed in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. The building may well be notable, but that doesn't mean the organisation that occupies it is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2024 (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.