Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

All of the sources are self-published, the article is clearly fringy (see last section), and I can not establish any form of notability for the subject. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 20:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the nomination, although I have to admit that I got a laugh when i saw that they self described themselves as Anglicans! I think Rowan should be informed! Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per the words of the golden-tongued nominator. Both churches and other organisations need to get above-average amounts of outside interest in order to qualify for notability when they're so new, and this doesn't demonstrate even average amounts of outside interest.  Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose of course. Just because you may not like the article or the group does not mean (sighs) it warrants deletion.  What's with the uptight Wiki-bombing here?  The thing is sourced, and the church and religion exist, whether you think it's all that "fringe" or not is irrelevant.  If the wording of the article needs fixing, then do that.  That's the recommendation, not to simply remove an article from WP just because you don't happen to like it.  There are plenty of "fringe" religions out there that have WP pages, so what.   As far as the sources, you have to understand something, when I created this article I was not doing it willy nilly, but because there was a reference to it in ANOTHER article, so it was kind of like a dead link situation.   The thing is notable enough for it to appear on various articles, and they are an official religion in England.  If the style is a bit "unencylcopedic" to some readers (though it's not), then simply modify or change or whatever.  Not delete.  Good day. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at WP:V (specifically WP:SPS) and WP:NOTABILITY; these are the guidelines I nominated under, and will stand even if WP:FRINGE is not met. I do not know if this matters, but the above oppose I believe is by the page creator and maintainer,12 who deleted the Deletion Template here. Plenty of fringe religions have Wikipedia pages? Well, either they have received independent, third-party coverage, which makes them notable even if they're small (Westboro, Peoples' Temple), or I'll nominate them for deletion as I run across them. This one has lots of Google entries, on websites hosted by the sect; third-party coverage is zero, as anyone can verify using the links at the top of the page. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 01:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I don't really care THAT much about this article. Nor this group.   My personal view (not really relevant, but) is that this group is a sick twisted illogical wacko group.   But that's not the point.   Yes, they're not as "notable" as the Mormon Church or Roman Catholic, no kidding.   But so aren't many other groups or churches or religious sects that have WP articles.   If this article is deleted, I won't lose one millisecond of sleep about it.   But my point also was that this was a dead link type situation in another article that had this church's name.   It lacked WP wiki link referencing.  That was all.   Now if this church (which admittedly is an idiotic and fringe sect) lacks enough sources, then so be it, that's how it goes.   I was thinking though that though lacking Google source support it was notable in that it is a religion that is known by at least a few on this planet, besides the group itself.  But whatever happens ultimately with this minor article (that I did not really care that much about, but only did it to source from another WP article, etc), is no big deal to me.  Cheerio. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL -- it's too small and too new a sect to have gotten much coverage yet. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless it can actually be established in the time of AfD process that this is more than said Brian Mackenzie-Hanson's homepage. I just searched site:www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/ "Mackenzie-Hanson" and doesn't appear to have received any coverage in even the local press, which makes it very dubious that there will be anything forthcoming. In one way it's a shame, because one service Wikipedia serves is for people who've found "The Church of XYZ" with a giant webpage and then to be able to WP it and see "a splinter group of the church of ABC, with two small congregations in D and E." - and in this case there's no evidence of a physical congregation at all. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know - I first came across its website a year or so back, I think, and my first impression was, "this must be massive - a Catholic Church of Catholicism! Arian Catholicism! I guess Bauer and Ehrman were right!" until I saw that every part was written by the same "Archbishop Cardinal-Priest Doctor Professor Most Reverend Brian Mackenzie-Hanson, ThD DD DPhil BM BCh LLB, Rightful Primate of All England". St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 12:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete -- This claims to be a denomination, but does not even state where the churches are or when they meet. This leads me to think that it has a self-appointed clergy and mnimal membership.  I rather suspect that the alleged archbishop is this software engineer, who claims to have a ThD.  Clearly NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2012 (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.