Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church in America


 * 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 of the debate was delete as non-notable and non-verifiable. —Cleared as filed. 05:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church in America

 * Delete. Not-notable, non-verifiable (references in Google are mainly from sites from this group and mirrors of Wikipedia) micro-denomination that may well exist only on the Internet. Article created by one of its clergy and thus may well qualify as a vanity article. It reads rather like an advertisement, in any event.  &mdash; A.S. Damick  talk contribs 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Abstrakt 05:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. 8 parishes, one of them "vaporware". TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Werdna648T/C\@ 10:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The comments below are unfounded attempts to discredit a small jurisdiction. All 8 parishes and 2 monasteries have valid physical addresses and phone numbers if anybody would like to verify their existence.  The article is about the Western-Rite jurisdiction and is 100% true.  The comment about one of the parishes being "vaporware" is an out right lie.  The main website shows pictures of the Synod and several of the clergy.  Perhaps it could have been written better, but the information is true and valid.  If you don't believe, then just try to call any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.53 (talk • contribs)
 * For my vaporware claim, see . This is counted as one of their 8 parishes despite the fact it has yet to hold a meeting of any kind pending "legal work", but hopes to do so sometime this year. This is patently nonsensical. I know of no other church in the world that counts parishes that have not yet been formed, and no legal work whatsoever is required to gather, talk, and pray. One must admit that such a state of affairs might lead a reasonable person to suspect a purely virtual existence. In any event, this group comes nowhere near Wikipedia's standard of notability, an issue quite distinct from whether or not it's true. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Saint Katherine of Alexandria Orthodox Church is in the infancy stages of establishing a parish. The "legal work" is what is necessary to operate as an official legal parish.  To your point though, we have about four families who "gather, talk, and pray".  In the summer, we plan to have our "official legal" start once we complete the "legal work" which every church in the United States of America must complete.  Regardless of what you think about Saint Katherine's, the other Parishes are already established with their own individual communities and the article is still true and valid about "The Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of America".  Call the Archdiocese Rectory if you like, or drop by and see if that's what you need to believe.  If the article was about Saint Katherine being a Parish, you'd have ground to stand on.  But the article is about the Archdiocese.  The fact that they "count" Saint Katherine as a Parish is nothing more than getting a little ahead of themselves with updating their website.  The article still holds true and is notable and is verifiable. Tbryant001 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The comment to which I was replying called me a liar; I was merely defending myself. But notability is a matter for the Wikipedia community to decide. It takes some time here as an editor to get a feel for what constitutes notability. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the clergy member who posted the orginal article, and am disappointed by the comments requesting deletion. I don't know what "vaporware" is, but if anybody has any doubts about the fact that this is a valid canonical Western-Rite Orthodox jurisdiction then feel free to contact me or His Emminence, Archbishop Anthony Bondi.  The contact information is on the website for those who are interested in discovering the false claims posted below.  We may be part of a small Western Rite Orthodox jurisidction, but just how big do you really think ROCOR or the Antiochian Western Rite Orthodox groups are?  Not much bigger at all.  If you want to debate canonical status, it should be done elsewhere.  This article is true, and represents and valid organization and legal entity.  Even if you don't believe it is "canonical" (which is your participation in a modern day heresy), it is at the very least legal and represents a group that practices and keeps the pre-schism Western Rite Orthodox faith and traditions. Tbryant001 23:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whether it is "true" or not is really not the issue. It is true that I have a yellow chair in my office, but that doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article.  The question is whether this group is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, whether the article was created as a vanity article (that is, it was written by a person or group about themselves), and whether it is verifiable for encyclopedic purposes (that is, whether anyone else has cared to write about it in third-party sources).  Nothing of what's been said here or added to the article answers any of these objections.  It should also be noted that the "supporting" article written alongside this one (Former Exarchate of Alexandria) also suffers from much the same problems and clearly has a severe POV slant.  &mdash; A.S. Damick  talk contribs 03:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: My comments related to truth address the comments that said the jurisdiction may only exist on the internet and/or it was "vaperware".  I am in the process of editing the articles to remove some of the POV slant and point to verifiable documentation, but all of the articles about any Orthodox jurisdiction have a clear level of vanity and POV slants as you describe them.  My purpose in writing the articles is to show people that there is another side of the history of Orthodoxy in America that has not been explored on this website yet.  So far, what is on this website is very one sided and only refers to other Orthodox jurisdictions as groups of people who don't practice the same Orthodox faith or follow the same Orthodox traditions.  The fact is that there are many Orthodox people who follow the same faith and traditions, but choose to not be in communion with the larger organizations for administrative reasons.  Again, this has not even been explored yet.  If the goal of Wikipedia is to tell the truth, then I think it should allow people to tell the whole truth and not allow larger groups to spread incomplete or untruthful information about smaller groups.  I agree with your comments about severe POV slant, but at least allow me time to edit it and don't be so quick to say "delete".  As it relates to "third parties"...you must understand that such a thing doesn't truly exist in matters of religion.  If it does, then I can assure you that a lot of what is written about Orthodoxy on this website was not done by a third party.  A great deal of what is written about Orthodoxy, especially in America, is filled with comments that degrade smaller Orthodox groups and call them "not true" or "not canonical" or claim that they  "ordain women".  At the very least, given us some time to put our articles out there that show the rest of the story.  As a smaller group, it will take time.  Any advice on improving the POV slant and making it sound less like an advertisement are welcome.  I do not want to advertise on these pages...only to complete the picture of Orthodoxy in America.  It may not be a picture that the larger groups want people to see, but it isn't any less true or verifiable. Tbryant001 18:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have updated the article, so it is now much shorter and less argumentative. Is it getting any better?  Tbryant001 19:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Verifiable refers to citing third-party sources. Without that, then Verifiability is not satisfied, which it quite manifestly needs to be.  Otherwise, then it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia standards and probably qualifies as original research, which is also expressly against Wikipedia policy.  What you say here indicates that there is a clear POV you're trying to push, as well, which is also a problem.  Wikipedia is not the place to show the world what they've been missing.  It's the place to summarize other people's research into encyclopedic articles.  The reason why there's a rule against vanity articles (that is, articles created or edited by the people they're about) is to help ensure notability.  In this case, while there's clearly a set of webpages which your organization has set up about themselves and we have you here writing articles about your group, there's precious little evidence that any scholars or media have found your group notable enough to address in their own writing.  The article as it stands still doesn't address any of these problems, and given the nature of the group in question, I don't think it can.  Hit it big first, then let someone else write about the your group.  &mdash; A.S. Damick  talk contribs 22:38, 13 January 2006 (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.