Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reform Mormonism 2


 * 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. unsourced = unverified = delete Spartaz Humbug! 15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reform Mormonism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This is a second nomination, the first having taken place in 2007. It was deleted then and has since been re-created. Due to the fact that the original discussion was almost 3 years ago, I didn't feel good about just speedily deleting this, but a PROD was recently declined. Since 2007, not much has changed with this article. It's still difficult to find any sources on this subject that are not blogs or self-promotional material. The movement is real, but I can't see anything that indicates that it is notable or that we can satisfy WP:V. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Uh I'm reluctant to say this, after Harvard Div, but I doubt to what extent this is a continuous group of Mormons who morphed their beliefs into this confession, or is it perhaps a group of outsiders who have managed to take over an identity and rework it to their likings. Those movements occur in religions of many kinds, and anyone could ask that about many of the groups in 'modern religion' that bear little resemblance to their namesakes of earlier centuries (it's called 'reform' without an LDS tradition of the word 'reform' - as Calvinism has), but a case could likely be made either way. MaynardClark (talk)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 02:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--It is important to keep all the articles about the various sects within the Latter Day Saint movement so that they can continue to be listed in the List of Latter Day Saint sects and thus provide easy access to the various beliefs all Latter Day Saint sects for the benefit of scholars and researchers. Keraunos (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment--The references in the article to the Liberal Democrat website and the article in the "Times and Seasons" LDS Internet magazine show that the movement is notable in that it has attracted attention from third party sources and thus there are sources in the article that are not just "blogs and self-referential material". Keraunos (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Times and Seasons is a blog. Democratic Underground is a site where anyone can post messages; the linked-to "article" is nothing more than a post by a member who has signed up. It could be self-promotional or not, but it is certainly not a reliable reference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, while this may be useful to some people, it's about a subject that appears not to be notable because of the lack of reliable sources, and thus we can't write a proper article about it. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge If there isn't a minor sect article it should be created. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Not notable, although it may become so. The whole thing is rather self-generated, or so it seems. The first two sources were the founder's own site and the record of his registering his new group with the state. The third is a blog discussion of the WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge While the article is not exactly in-depth, it is related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a very controversial religion. Perhaps best to merge this article. RayJazz21 (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that every fact about a "very controversial religion" has to be included in its article. Of course liberal trends in Mormonism or the Mormon community should be covered in WP's articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no requirement. However, I think this is notable enough to be included in the larger article, just like other sects who have been scattered across news channels the past few years. The point is that Reform Mormonism may very well (and probably will) become quite notable. Take a look at other reformists. I say merge it. RayJazz21 (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, probably to the section on other LDS faiths. This subject is definitely not worthy of its own article yet (it looks like Reform Mormonism is only recognized by one U.S. state) but it is worthy of a few sentences in the main article, especially since it's so different from other offshoots of the Mormon church. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't seem to find any media coverage on this subject.-- Pink Bull  04:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - This article is actually highly unsourced and potentially unverified. In the 5 references: 2 blogs and a yahoo group. In the external links it directs to a Myspace page, 3 blogs, French Wikipedia article, and a festival page. I have removed them from the article as they are unreliable sources and cannot be used. Aside from its .org website, I have been unable to find any third party websites of notability and zero news media stories about the sect. I have a feeling this is a very small group of religious people that would hence fail WP:GROUP. Mkdw talk 22:53, 30 December 2009 (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.