Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Lutheran Diocese (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The arguments in favour of deletion are both stronger and greater in number. Michig (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Independent Lutheran Diocese
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This small denomination in Oregan was deleted via a full debate in 2009, and it's been back at CSD again. I had a look for news hits, but could only find things like this press release. However, I'm not convinced it's completely unsalvagable, so I'm bringing discussion here to see if anyone else can do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd looked for sources and honestly, I couldn't find anything. Basically this is an organization that someone started up on their own in 2005. Lutherans don't have one specific central government that they answer to akin to how Catholics generally answer to an archdiocese or the Pope, but they do have larger organizations like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The ILD is not a part of any of these other denominations of Lutheranism from what I can see. (In other words while it can be similar to various orthodox Lutheran denominations it is not a part of those denominations and should be seen as a separate group entirely.) It looks like this is also something that just about anyone can join, so it's not like it covers a set portion of territory like the Missouri Synod does. In any case, despite being around for 10 years I cannot find anything out there other than routine notifications of events and various primary sources like press releases- and I've looked under ILD and its original name, Old Lutheran Church in America. This seems to be your run of the mill small faction where someone decided to start up their own organization. Christianity (especially Lutheranism) has quite a few of these, where people decide to start up their own organization where they say they're going back to the "true" path. Per the article, this organization oversees less than 30 churches. Given that there's pretty much zero coverage other than (if the article is to be believed) a mention in a Northwestern Publishing book (a religious publisher that publishes things like devotionals and Bibles, so it's not an academic press per Wikipedia's criteria), I honestly don't think that this would merit an entry on Wikipedia. It also doesn't help that it's incredibly promotional in tone and has been used as a COI WP:SOAPBOX for years. In other words, it's not like the more well-known and established Lutheran Synods so it shouldn't be considered on par with those. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, it's not part of the International Lutheran Council or any of the denominations listed here, to the best of my knowledge. By all accounts it looks to be a new and independent (hence its name) organization that operates separately from the more established Lutheran bodies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- As I read it this is a small denomination. We normally allow articles on denominations, though not necessarily those on local churches.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Denominations are generally notable precisely because they are usually covered in directories, as this one is. I can't access WELS and other Lutherans, but that doesn't matter. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind an inherent notability criteria for religions (anyone got a link to policy?) but the content still needs to be verifiable, which at the moment it largely isn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is - look up WELS. StAnselm (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If this is kept then this will need to be re-written from scratch since this is pretty unambiguously promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do have to ask though - what is the criteria for even being in this directory? Is it the type of thing where anyone can join if they have a certain number of churches under their belt? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean, what if it's basically the type of thing where it's a directory where anyone can be listed? What concerns me here is that we don't do this for other organizations that contain multiple groups, so I'm not exactly sure why this would be different for religious organizations. (As I see it, this looks to be more of an organization/association than a denomination per se, really - it even describes itself as an association in the article.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At the very least if this is kept, I'd like to request that the original editor not make edits on the page since he's the one that has been adding the various promotional prose and has been using it as an extension of the organization's website. I don't really think that he's able to edit without making it promotional or non-NPOV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  14:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  deletes  Flag me if independent sources can be produced. I have looked and can find no reliable news reports or secondary sources. The problem as I see it is that any group can declare itself a denomination, but to merit a Wikipedia article a denomination needs to be written up in reliable secondary sources.  I don't know this directory, since it is the only source yet produced, we would need to know that it sets some standards for inclusion.  I don't doubt that this denomination is real and significant to its members, I simply have tried and failed to locate reliable secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - due to a lack of coverage from any independent, reliable sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Revisiting because St. Anselm and Peterkingiron usually understand these things. I did find a page for a Church that belongs to the ILD, another church website [www.missionarylutheran.org/our-history.html] and a page for a seminary    True,  the only secondary source is a very small paper that ran what appears to be a Seminary press release .  Denominations are inherently notable.  But the lack of  no secondary sources.... I'm rethinking.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Quis separabit?  21:08, 16 July 2015 (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.