Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federation of Reformed Churches


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Federation of Reformed Churches

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

Nominating following contested PROD. Micro-denomination of (perhaps) six congregations; PROD contestor said poor sourcing is not a reason to delete, but no existing sources are valid for establishing notability, and WP:BEFORE searches provide no additional evidence of notability under WP:NORG.

Review of existing sources:


 * 1) Link - Dead link; archived link here fails verification; it has not been updated since 2004 and confirms no other information about this church.
 * 2) Link - Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
 * 3) Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.
 * 4) Link - Self-published source making a single passing reference to the subject that may verify existence but not notability.
 * 5) Link - A single passing reference that may verify existence but not notability.
 * 6) Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.
 * , 10, 11. Link, Link, Link - Webpages of member congregations and thus primary sources
 * 1) Link - Denomination's webpage and thus a primary source
 * 2) Link - Presbytery meeting minutes; primary source.

I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, United States of America, New York,  and Ohio. Skynxnex (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the excellent source analysis by the nom and the overall lack of sources available to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. The souce analysis supports the rationale. So many non RS with little to none GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:57, 23 April 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.