Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian 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 keep.  Sandstein  08:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church

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

Does not pass WP:NCHURCH due to a complete lack of significant independent reliable sources. –– FormalDude   talk   04:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. –– FormalDude    talk   05:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This is a denomination of 9 congregations, not a mere local church, but I still doubt it is large enough for us to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Peterkingirion I understand that the denomination is really small. However, I have added more independent sources that cover information about her. Even small, there are independent sources telling its history and doctrine. Therefore, it meets the notoriety criterion. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: this is a very poorly written article, and it took a bit of work to confirm whether this denomination was Brazilian or American: User:Daniel Silva Mendanha also wrote the Portuguese article. But no, it appears they did not "adopt the name 'Igreja Presbiteriana Bíblica - Presbytery of Faith'". StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @StAnselm Indeed, there was a translation error. I first created the article in Portuguese and then the one in English and there was a translation error. I have already corrected the information. Thanks for the collaboration. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added another independent source, which talks about the denomination's history and doctrine. As much as it is a small denomination, it has its history and doctrine informed by independent sources, in a way that meets the criteria of notoriety.--Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any sources that meet either NORG or GNG, which is the requirement of NCHURCH. Most of the sources are clearly not independent or not reliable. Several appear to be self-published. –– FormalDude   talk   01:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @FormalDude Hi! There are several sources unrelated to the denomination in question. The second source (https://web.archive.org/web/20141111183209/http://www.tateville.com/churches.html) is not from the church and is not controlled by the church, but tells about its history. The third source is a book, which talks about a doctrine of denomination (https://web.archive.org/web/20220606141519/http://library.mibckerala.org/lms_frame/eBook/Petrus%20Romanus_%20The%20Final %20Pope%20%20-%20Thomas%20Horn.pdf). The sixth source (https://web.archive.org/web/20150530005725/http://historiadaigreja.info/category/historia-da-igreja-4-sec-20-21/) is from an academic institution, from theological teaching in Brazil, which has no relationship with the denomination in question, but reports on the history of the denomination's emergence. The eighth source reports on general meetings of various denominations and is not controlled by the denomination or its members (https://blog.gajunkie.com/?p=747). Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Blogs and other self-published sources are not reliable. That leaves only the book source, which I'm not sure is reliable either, based on all the bible quotes and unverifiable references. –– FormalDude   talk   07:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! The first book (3rd source) discusses Christian doctrines. It is normal to mention biblical texts. Also, the book has 746 references and more than 250 of them (I stopped counting after that, because there were too many) with links (verifiable) and the references without links are other books, which is normal for a book to do. Therefore, there is no way to mischaracterize the book as an independent source. Also, the information about the denomination present in it can be confirmed by the 11th source, another book that I added to the sources today. I also added a 3rd book (now 2nd source). The 4th source (https://web.archive.org/web/20141111183209/http://www.tateville.com/churches.html), which before the latest editions was the 2nd, is not self-published. The site is not related to the denomination or its members. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the multiple book sources. Religious books are acceptable for religious topics as per a recent WP:RSN discussion, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Atlantic306. Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Atlantic306. StAnselm (talk) 05:06, 10 July 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.