Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformed Church of Nepal


 * 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. Tone 09:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Reformed Church of Nepal

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There are no independent reliable sources providing significant coverage. Brief mentions say more about the earthquake than the church. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nepal.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: the Faith in Focus article (published by the Reformed Churches of New Zealand) is indeed an independent reliable source providing significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sources don't need to be wholly independent of Christianity to present independent coverage of a Christian topic. Sources present in article evidence notability readily and clearly. Reliability of at least two sources is good. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I suspect that the founding pastor, Ram Nepal, is also notable, since it looks like he is the same man profiled by Christianity Today in 1992. StAnselm (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * DELETE:- Delete please:- Reason:- Advertisement :- All private links to private websites. Multiple Error 404 pages. I might advise holding on to it for a moment, but please provide reliable sources from The Kantipur or such. - (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- According to the article, this is a denomination of 300 churches. We normally keep denominational articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have to lose respect for you due to your cognitive bias. A plea for WP:OUTCOMES is circular reasoning. I urge you to point to an SNG or at least tell us that you like it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an organization and therefore the appropriate guideline is WP:NORG which required in-depth sources which speak directly about the topic organization and also contains "Independent Content" from sources unaffiliated with the topic org. Not a single source meets the criteria. First, all of the sources which are affiliated with the Evangelical church - they fail ORGIND as they are not considered "Independent Content". Even leaving that aside and looking at the content of the best of the non-PRIMARY articles: we have an article from "Evangelical Times" reporting on earthquake-damaged churches - no in-depth information on the topic organization fails ORGDEPTH; we have a PDF with an article primarily about Ram Nepal and almost nothing about the topic org, fails ORGDEPTH also; we have an Earthquake appeal, fails ORGDEPTH and ORGIND; we have an article discussing the involvement of MINTS in Nepal, fails ORGIND and ORDDEPTH; finally we have a mention-in-passing in a list. None of the Keep !voters have provided any guideline-based reasoning nor pointed to specific sources and explained why they meet our criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails NORG.  HighKing++ 14:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly about "sources which are affiliated with the Evangelical church" not being considered independent: that's never been the way WP:INDEPENDENT has been understood by the community. StAnselm (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Check out the definition of "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND which is the appropriate guideline for this organization.  HighKing++ 10:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.  HighKing++ 11:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a recent RSN discussion that found that religious sources can be reliable sources for religious subjects. If you stretch independent too far you could argue that atheist publications are not independent of atheists. I have no opinion on this AfD Atlantic306 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and User:HighKing. Had it been notable, there would be independent sources in local medial as well. I found none.nirmal (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But that's the very thing we can't be sure of, since local media is likely to be offline and in Nepali.StAnselm (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * -Can you give some examples of Nepali language sources? I am native and can verify. Best! nirmal (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! No, I can't. Have you searched for the Nepali name? (It's on the website but part of an image, so I can't copy and paste it.) StAnselm (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - Sorry, I could not find any content in Nepali either. Please see for yourself रिफर्मड चर्च अफ नेपाल. nirmal (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per Nom, HighKing, and nirmal. One of our fundamental principles is ''Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" that includes All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources... The policy on verifiability includes No original research. Primary sources, or those closely affiliated, do not advance notability. While there is continued minority religious persecution the federal, democratic republican state (a multi-party parliamentary republic?) claims to provide a clear provision (Article 23) for religious freedom and tolerance. A church with a supposed 800 member organizations (56,956 sq mi) is not small so "someone" would surely write about it. This article and ones like Continental Reformed Protestantism (tagged since 2008 with no sources) should have secondary sources not as a result of earthquake damage. The WP:BURDEN does not rest on those that have done a WP:BEFORE (d #3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC) == Otr500 (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of independent coverage. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: lacks independent sources. Fails notability. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2022 (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.