Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals


 * 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. bd2412 T 01:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No secondary references. --ServB1 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. According to the website of the association/connection, there are around two hundred and one churches affiliated with the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals . For what it is worth, Theopedia provides a link to the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals in their articles about the Reformed faith. Individual congregations also identify as being apart of the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals.    Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as demoninations of this size are usually kept as per AFD common outcomes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The lack of press coverage and the fact that the network is "a loose association of like-minded churches" (as this page states) does not really help. But Atlantic306 is right: over 80 churches (or 200, for that matter) makes it a size that can't be ignored. K. ROTH  21:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Atlantic306. StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Very little coverage to satisfy WP:ORG. I'm surprised how weak literally all of the above arguments are. "Keep because we usually keep" is a circular argument. If most similar organizations are kept, it was because they were found to be notable. There is no free pass through WP:ORG for a particular number of member associations. We need significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone above. When it comes to religious institutions of this size it's best to keep in order to avoid accusations of discrimination.4meter4 (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hmm. Given none of the keeps seem to have any basis in policy, I do hope that whoever closes this not-a-vote will elaborate on the policy-based rationale... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did find one publication giving a history of the organization. There's only a partial view available online (see here).4meter4 (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ? Could you point to where in there it gives the history of the organization? I tracked down that source here, and it looks like it is mentioned exactly one time. The entirety: "I recently received some information from a church in the east inviting me to Chicago to attend a national formation meeting for a new fellowship of churches called F.I.R.E. That is an acronym for the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals. In their vision statement they write, '… we seek to promote unity and co-operation among Calvinistic Baptists.'"
 * It's a way to talk about a different subject, as far as I can tell. It's not mentioned again. It's also basically a pastor typing his thoughts in a multi-church newsletter, which doesn't seem like the sort of coverage we would want for WP:ORG even if it were in depth. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made a poor assumption based on the partial view.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - No secondary references and see WP:ORG. --ServB1 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The existence and precedence set by other topics being included on Wikipedia can be used as a data point when looking at notability. However, that does not mean that when challenged that no evidence of notability - in this case through WP:ORG - needs to be provided. It does. What appears to be verifiable to RS is minimal and these sources certainly do not help establish notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep -- A denomination with 80 congregations in US and some in about 9 other countries ought to be notable enough to have a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2019 (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.