Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecumenical Catholic Communion


 * 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 leaning to "keep". Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Ecumenical Catholic Communion

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

The Ecumenical Catholic Communion is a small group with no recognition whatsoever from any Christian mainline denonimations. Their leaders are widely considered to be "episcopi vagantes" and nothing of notice can be said about them. Furthermore, most of the article refers to primary sources. Thus, I move for deletion. Karma1998 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: I was going to Soft Delete this article as the nominator has changed their mind but it was already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. So, I'm relisting this discussion in case BD2412 pulls together an article to Merge this content into or we hear some opinions from editors knowledgeable about obscure religious organizations. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Karma1998 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge all of these to a List of episcopi vagantes. BD2412  T 21:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that the nominator removed some content from the article, claiming that the source didn't say what it very clearly did say. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the website of the NCC doesn't mention the ECC among it's members. Please substantiate your claims. As for the source, I probably misread it and I apologise for that.-Karma1998 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. I just checked it yesterday. Elizium23 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And here it is, in black and white. You seem to have misread more than one source. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * please cease immediately to have such an aggressive attitude towards me. I have checked the list again and I can confirm that it is part of the National Council of Churches. This means it enjoys some kinda of recognition, making me think that we should perhaps leave the page and not delete it.Karma1998 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not have an aggressive attitude towards you. I have simply disagreed with a couple of your deletion nominations, and have said why. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: No assertion of notability, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NRELORG. UtherSRG (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? What would qualify for you as an "assertion of notability" other than the citation of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The ECC is a member of the National Council of Churches and works regularly with the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Old Catholic Churches in Europe. Your statement that the ECC has "no recognition whatsoever" is easily disproven. 2600:8800:52AA:C000:14F3:751E:D0D1:2341 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nomination says that "most of the article refers to primary sources." But it doesn't.  The secondary sources are mostly regional papers such as the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, the Denver Post, and the St. Louis Riverfront Times, but give significant coverage of the subject of the article.  A few of the citations, including that to the Longmont Times-Call, are apparently permanently dead links but also appear to support WP:SIGCOV.  (The National Catholic Reporter citations give support to the context of the article but don't have WP:SIGCOV of the church.) On the whole, the subject of the article has enough citations to meet WP:GNG but this article needs WP:CLEANUP. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2022 (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.