Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc.


 * 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. It's easy to see why this is the last AFD from this day to be closed. Everyone, including the nominator, seems to agree that this should be notable, that we should be able to find some decent sources on which to base an article, yet nobody has been able to actually do so. The argument that a denomination of this size is automatically notable was discounted as there is no basis in Wikipedia policy for that argument. No prejudice against recreation if sufficient reliable sources that actually discuss who they are, what they believe, etc can be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article has NO reliable sources so far as I can see. I do not think it even has enough sources to meet WP:NOTABILITY. The only sources which I saw which might meet notability were some legal documents, and I really don't think they count. At any rate, I would rather see it deleted than stubbed till WP:RS become available (which might be never). (For noobies on the article: please remember that notability in the real world is not the same as notability for Wikipedia.) Becritical (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Added Relative to the claim below that it is notable because of the 11 year old article in a local newspaper about the church putting up a building, here is what Notability_(organizations_and_companies), says: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization."
 * So, no, that single ancient source is not sufficient. Becritical (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added Use of the church website would be acceptable if we could verify the information, but we can't since there are no RS; See #2 here. Becritical (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added Please consider the following quote when voting:
 * "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."


 * Keep. I can't actually read it, but this image of a page from the Tacoma newspaper sure looks to me like independent third-party coverage of the existence of this denomination. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems to be from 1999. I'm not sure what one would write from a single 11 year old source though.  What you seem to be saying is that we should keep the article as a stub, based on this single source and the legal documents? Because, we can't just repeat the information in that source since it's 11 years old.  So I guess we'd just note the existence of the church in 1999.  But see the "Added" part above.  It's not enough. Becritical (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I mentioned that Tacoma newspaper article because it was an external link in the article, and I noticed it while I was repairing the malformed AfD nomination. I didn't take the time look for any additional third-party coverage, but I expect that it exists. (I would expect to find more coverage for an institution that gets so much attention from online forums.) Regarding the age of the article, please note that notability is not temporary. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Followup comment: I found text from that same article in Google News. It definitely has some content that could be used in an article. For example, it says that the NTCC is "fundamentalist in its literal approach to the Bible and traditionally Pentecostal in its teachings" and that its "holiness standards" specify that "women shouldn't cut their hair or wear makeup and that men should wear their hair short." --Orlady (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there is no expiration date on notability, it's just that this church never had it to begin with. Also, there aren't any other RS available, or the church members and ex-members would have produced them by now IMHO. Becritical (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. A denomination with 115 affilated churches around the world certainly ought to be notable.  The Tacoma newspaper article cited by Orlady verifies its existence, and the church's own self-published materials are reliable sources for the article (although they don't establish notability), so these together provide enough to write some sort of neutral article describing the subject. I would certainly be happier if there was more in the way of reliable third party sources.  The rest of the article, in its current state, seems to be based on (1) government filings, which are essentially primary sources and don't establish notability; and (2) material from a critical organization, which under Wikipedia standards is neither reliable nor evidence of notability, and (unless there is coverage of these criticisms in outside reliable-source media) this content probably violates WP:NPOV.  Much of the article might also be argued to constitute inappropriate original research.  If kept, the article needs to be better sourced or pared down considerably. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I reviewed Your reliable sources link before posting. I agree with you in general, about what needs to be done IF the article is kept, but I disagree that the church website is a RS even for its own article.  We would be forced to use the church website as the only source for the church as it exists today.  To do so violates criteria 5 on your link.  And if the site is not "unduly self-serving" per criteria 1, I can't imagine what would be. I don't think we can write a NPOV article on one 11 year old source plus the church website.  According to |the policy on non-commercial organizations, "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:


 * 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
 * 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)


 * The information on the church website simply cannot be verified per #2. This is getting to be a complex argument about the rules here I guess, but in reality it boils down to whether this article can be well-written with the extremely limited sources, and I don't think it can. Becritical (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article has been on my watchlist for a long time, but I generally avoid looking at it because it gives me a headache. At various times, the article has contained an enormous amount of detail and allegations that are difficult to make sense of, much less verify. Regardless of my headaches, I think that it would be pretty hard to argue with a brief article along the general lines of this old version of the article. Also, while the various government documents aren't evidence of notability, they do provide some confirmation for historical details (such as dates). --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If people want to keep the article as such a stub, just as in that link, that is probably acceptable per IAR. I still don't think it meets the NOTABILITY requirements, but I don't want to be a dick about this (GRBerry also suggested stubbing it drastically on the talk page (but he doesn't seem to be around so we can't ask him). We would need to add the old newspaper article in as our source.  The article would take some monitoring to make sure that text sourced to church documents was not added back in. Becritical (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep there is enough encyclopedic nature here to keep the article. Even if the references are not yet up to scratch. looking in google news archive at  there are a number of other newpaper articles, which unfortunately are pay per view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which means under Wikipedia rules we can't use them. And just looking at Google, I think they might just be passing references in other articles. Becritical (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Becritical: This is incorrect.  Wikipedia has no requirement that sources have to be on line at all, much less free. See WP:Identifying reliable sources: .  Also, your reading of the self-published sources rules may be a bit more stringent than required; I think the Church's materials can be used as sources for non-controversial, NPOV descriptive content (such as basic historical facts, the number of affiliated churches, etc.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to have changed in the last year or so. Having read some of the materials on the church, I would not trust the Church's site even for seemingly non-controversial details. Becritical (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To concur with what Arxiloxos said, just because hyperlinks to articles aren't immediately available, that doesn't mean they magically disappeared and have never existed. If full hyperlinked sources were required for Wikipedia, then most books would be disqualified as sources for material.--Oakshade (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * that is true, however your argument is incomplete since we don't know that those sources constitute more than a brief mention; thus, we have not established WP:NOTABILITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Becritical (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My summary is that the newspaper references establish notability as you can tell that some of the newspaper articles are about the denomination. The non-independent references can be used to substantiate the content of the article, where it would be in the interest of the reference in being correct.  (avoid COI). So the content of the article does not have to be deleted. Nor does the entire article need to be deleted. PS Becritical has been stripping the article of material giving a flase impression of what the original article was like. This is COI. So I encourage Becritical to restore content deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I merely stubbed it as suggested here by ORLady here and GRBerry on the talk page. You can revert if you think appropriate.  I do not think we have established notability by two small and old articles in local newspapers which don't do anything but quote the church pastors.  Please also see my post here, about one of the only two "independent" sources. Becritical (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V; I'll change that if it can be verified from at least three sources. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Any institution that gets as much attention on online bulletin boards and forums as NTCC has received on sites like FactNet and RickRoss.com (here's an example of the content there), as well as anti-NTCC and NTCC survivor websites and blogs like http://www.ntccxposed.com/, http://truestoriesoflifeinthentcc.blogspot.com/ , http://newtestamentchristianimperium.blogspot.com/ , and http://www.insiderpages.com/b/3723243712 , is probably a topic that ought to be covered in Wikipedia. Also, note that House of Prayer Christian Church is said to have formed as a schism from NTCC. Those forums and blogs aren't reliable sources, but where there's this much smoke, it's usually possible to find a fire. --Orlady (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I very much agree with you: there's fire out there alright! The problem is that we can't write about it because we can't use the sources!  All the sources available are non-RS.  I don't think we even have the sources to justify a stub.  We most certainly don't have the sources to write a decent article. Becritical (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not think I have ever seen an AfD discussion before which made so much use of "I think that evidence of notability probably exists somewhere, so we should keep it, even though we haven't seen the evidence" as an argument. In separate posts Orlady has said: (1) I didn't take the time look for any additional third-party coverage, but I expect that it exists. (2) I would expect to find more coverage for an institution that gets so much attention from online forums. (3) I can't actually read it, but this image of a page from the Tacoma newspaper sure looks to me like independent third-party coverage. (4) Any institution that gets as much attention on online bulletin boards and forums as NTCC has received on sites like FactNet and RickRoss.com ... as well as anti-NTCC and NTCC survivor websites and blogs ... is probably a topic that ought to be covered in Wikipedia. In addition Arxiloxos says that it certainly ought to be notable, and Graeme Bartlett says there is enough encyclopedic nature here to keep the article. Even if the references are not yet up to scratch.


 * Open blogs and forums are not reliable sources. To say (in effect) "if there is a lot of coverage in unreliable sources then we will simply assume there must also be coverage in reliable sources" is a roundabout way of treating the unreliable sources as though they were reliable: we cannot assume the existence of sources we have not seen.


 * Slightly different but related is the assumption that unseen sources would establish notability if we were to see them. Thus we have Graeme Bartlett saying looking in google news archive ... there are a number of other newpaper articles, which unfortunately are pay per view, and also the newspaper references establish notability as you can tell that some of the newspaper articles are about the denomination. No they don't, unless we know that the articles give substantial coverage: we cannot simply assume that they do. Of the six hits listed by the linked search, one is not a newspaper article, but a link to a search result which finds one entry: an official record of a deed transfer. One is a book review, and the abstract which is viewable does not mention New Testament Christian Churches of America, so it is impossible to tell how much of a mention the book gives it. The other four, as far as can be gathered from the abstracts, do give some mention of churches with "new testament" in their title, so they may all belong to this denomination, and the articles may give them significant coverage. On the other hand the Google summaries for these four all contain text with identical wording, which suggests possible standard-format press releases, and therefore not independent sources.
 * All three of the editors arguing for "keep" have used variations of one sort or another on the theme of "I guess it must be notable, and I suppose there must be sources". The simple fact is, though, that the only reliable independent source which has actually been produced is a newspaper article which tells us that the denomination once built a new church. Not substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment (another source):Here is a second readable on-line source, from the 2006 Charleston Gazette. I don't know that this will change many minds, but the article mentions a bit about the theology of the church, mentions the headquarters in Graham, Washington and that the church "has a strong presence near major military bases". "New Testament Christian Church welcoming new members", Charleston Gazette, September 26, 2006. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is better than some we've seen, but having read the article it is not what you would think of as "independent reporting," but rather basically a bunch of quotes from one of their pastors. So I would ask editors whether it meets the standard discussed here, where it says "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability".  To me these are "trivial works," put out by local papers but not really providing us with encyclopedic content.  I don't think the 11 year old article or the article from 2006 gives us enough.  RS also says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability," and these two articles, to me, definitely don't qualify.  If all we get are articles when they put up buildings, I do not think they are notable, and the nature of the (two) sources doesn't provide enough for a NPOV article.  The sources simply did not provide scrutiny, as in "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.. We're trying to produce a professional encyclopedia here, not some article which merely quotes from a couple of articles in local newspapers which did not do any investigative reporting. Becritical (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is the sort of thing that establishes notability, even if cannot 100% trust the content. Even for newspapers that we count as reliable, there are willed with inaccuracies, missing important truths and full  of opinion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are not enough sources to write more than a stub if we are going to be NPOV. If we write more than a stub, using the most "reliable" sources (one fluff piece from 1999 and one fluff piece from 2006), we end up with nothing more than a piece of promotional material for the church.  Wikipedia isn't here to be a recruiting device, which is why we should wait for sufficient WP:RS before we allow an article.  We simply don't have enough sources.  Consider the spirit of this passage "This can sometimes happen when notability was not discussed earlier in its history or was discussed but there was no clear consensus; when there was a flurry of media reports but it has since become clear the topic was not notable; after a significant cleanup"  in which even quite a few news reports do not establish notability.  Now consider this: "For example, routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article."  I think that last quote establishes that this church has NO sources which establish its notability.  But the most basic fact is we don't have sufficient sourcing for an encyclopedia article.  "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources."  Well, two fluff pieces (or more), don't qualify.  Because basically it's a matter of whether we can write a real article, and in this case we can't.  Those two articles are little more than press releases.  "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity..." .  There is just no way this qualifies.  The sources we have are what NOTABILITY calls "trivial works".


 * "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."

Becritical (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. NTCC is a relatively small, abusive, cultic-type religious organization that shuns publicity, preys off young soldiers, and seeks to fly 'under the radar' in every aspect of its existence.  The article is a work in progress, and its framework needs to remain in place at the very least as a public service!  The person who nominated the article for deletion is quite likely one of the members of NTCC, who have vandalized and viciously and relentlessly fought the existence of this article and its contents since its inception.

The value of a Wikipedia entry is even greater for dangerous groups such as NTCC because there is a compelling need for a central place to compile the available material so that it may be easily found. This article, though somewhat substandard, should NOT be deleted. It should rather be restored as it was because it is actually more important than Wiki articles on large 'noteworthy' denominations for which information is abundant and easily found elsewhere. Availability of information about smaller groups is naturally going to be scarcer according to their size and shorter length of existence, and so they need to be cut some slack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.118.115 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)69.92.118.115 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying. Since we are confined to the "reliable" sources, and there are only two "reliable" sources which are fluff pieces, we can only write a promotional article (or one which ignores the ugly side of this church).  Is that what you want? Becritical (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because here is an ugly reality for you: anyone who wants to take the negative information out of this article can do it, because the sources are blogs and personal websites. IF YOU WANT TO WRITE THE REALITY OF THIS CHURCH YOU CAN'T DO IT HERE.  By reality I mean WP:NPOV, showing both sides of the subject.  Wikipedia does not accept the sources which tell the underlying story of this church (positive or negative).  So vote accordingly.  We do NOT need to cut some slack here, because if we do we merely produce biased articles one way or another. Becritical (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if all that remains is a stub or a very basic "fluff article," then yes we still definitely want at least that. But the full article had been honed by both sides and was accurate as it stood. This church organization is notable because they continue to be aggressive in proselyting new young members to replace the many they lose from attrition, and for this reason it is important that their presence continue to be maintained on the leading source of information on the Web. (Wikipedia is always at or near the top of the list on any search for NTCC.) Hopefully links can still be made to other related material such as blogs for those seeking additional information from either perspective. Because their leadership has historically sought to perpetuate a culture of organizational arrogance and secrecy, it is vital that those who are searching be able to easily find the information they need.69.92.118.115 (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But that can't happen under Wikipedia rules, without special pleading, with which I don't agree. I'm trying to save the article from being nothing but a promotional piece for the church.  If you keep it, that is what it is going to be, because we need to go by the rules Wikipedia has worked out.  I hope this isn't the way it goes, but that is how it must be if it is not deleted.  [|Blogs and personal websites won't be included] even as links per WP:RS, nor will information from them be included.  Really.... I get your point, and I agree, but I know where this will eventually lead, and I'm trying to not go there, because basically it should not be here since it can't be NPOV under WP rules.  If you want to get a message out there, Wikipedia is not the place to do it.  Apparently, no one within the church knows anything about Wikipedia, but eventually they will catch on as to how to use the WP rules to create a promotional article and ban all negative content.  Especially now that I have alerted them.  Becritical (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The cause of NPOV can be achieved quite well by two opposing groups ('Wiki', by definition), working together to iron out their differences. A smaller religious denomination is equally notable as a larger one! However, there is precious little public knowledge available about most obscure groups such as NTCC apart from that which is contributed by a) current members, and b) former members. Before this intervention, the article was a highly accurate reflection of that process.

A well-researched and highly-referenced article with 100% RS and zero OR should be the ultimate goal for every article. However, a low quality yet truthful article is much more of a service than is NO article! To require that every article be fully developed and 'A' rated before it is fit for inclusion is draconian and unrealistic. An article of this nature should be acceptable to continue in its embryonic state indefinitely, with the best available information contributed by the 'wiki' from both sides balancing it out for NPOV. As better-referenced material becomes available to 'wikify' and improve it, wonderful. But during that process, my philosophy is that every article of this nature ought to remain unmolested.69.92.118.115 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * TO THE CLOSING ADMIN: Sorry  about the bold, but I'd like to point out a quote from the above, which seems to summarize the "keep" votes: "However, a low quality yet truthful article is much more of a service than is NO article!"  This isn't a vote, we need to abide by WP rules.


 * Response: Yes, that's your philosophy, but a) this article as it stood did not have proper sourcing and b) an NPOV article on this topic is impossible under the WP:RS rules. We don't wait around for sources to become available. We have the sources to begin with. Becritical (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a denomination, not a local church. If it has 100 congregations, it ought to be notable, whether it is orthodox or cultic.  The problem is that all we have to go on is a stub.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "ought to be notable." Yes, this is rather frustrating, because all the keep votes are based on saying it ought to be notable, or that we ought to "cut some slack" and use blogs as sources. If you want to examine the lousy sourcing, see the recent history of the article. But I'm trying to deal with the reality here.  Becritical (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2010 (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.