Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformed Old Catholic Church


 * 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 Draftify. SpinningSpark 11:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Reformed Old Catholic Church

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

WP:NCHURCH; I found nothing on this denomination apart from its website and the seminary mentioned in the article. The "Further reading" section was added years after the article was created by (who is not the original creator of the article); the books in it likely do not mention the subject, as they are about the global independent bishops phenomenon, so such a small denomination is unlikely to be mentioned. The Independent bishops: an international directory contains no "Reformed Old Catholic Church" in its denomination index (p. 497). I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Wiki is an American company correct why then are they playing fast and loose with the First Amendment? Which guarantees freedom of Religion. The Reformed Old Catholic Church is a Independent Catholic Church.It should be noted that not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. This is discrimination. The Church has a large Church in Kimbolton New Zealand and is very large across Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.86.88.78 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The deletions from wiki have been due to the Church being inclusive and accepting of LGBT persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.86.88.78 (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, the deletion proposal is made due to the denomination's lack of WP:NOTABILITY. Please do not attack others. You have not provided any reliable secondary source which describes this church. Veverve (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , a body that has a web site and a seminary obviously really exists, no matter how small it might be, so deletion of the article does not seem appropriate. A small organization that's relatively unknown can become significant in ways that are sometimes unexpected, and Wikipedia is particularly useful as a reference because it often contains information on organizations that are small and obscure.  Of course, we should do whatever we can to bring the article up to standard by (1) ensuring that the content is current and verifiable and (2) removing references that prove to be irrelevant.
 * Additionally, articles about denominations that self-identify as "Catholic" but are not part of the Catholic Church should contain clear indication of that fact to avoid confusion, either in a header note or in the introduction (and this should be standardized). One can cite Annuario Pontifico (preferably the current edition) as a source for the lack of affiliation.  Norm1979 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that a group which does not meet the WP:NCHURCH criteria can be kept on the ground that it may or may not potentially meet said criteria within the next 25 years or so? As a general rule, Wikipedia should contain subjects which meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria and are not Fringe theories, the opposite of obscure information.
 * Also, having a website does not prove anything; I could also create my own website with my own made up denomination and another website for my alleged seminary. Moreover, having a website is not part of the WP:NCORP criteria. Veverve (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is either encyclopedic or it is not. If it is then this article should stay, The ROCC is present in a number of countries including the UK, USA, various African countries, NZ and Australia. The assertion that the denomination is not notable ignores the simple, salient fact that it is notable in the lives of it's members. As well this article provides a jumping off point for LGBTQIA+ people looking for an accepting church home. I recommend retention. kiwimac (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)kiwimackiwimac (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NCHURCH does not mention notability is established once a denomination is notable in the lives of it's members. Veverve (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I note that you describe yourself as Consecrated Bishop in Aotearoa by the Reformed Old Catholic Church in 2019; to me, you arguing to keep the article on the religious organisation you belong to in this AfD seems like a clear Conflict of interest (COI), and COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. Veverve (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Said person didn't even !vote and disclosed their affiliation. I don't see how this violates COI. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The user ended his/her post by "I recommend retention." Due to the user's apparent lack of experience on WP, I interpret it as a way of voting. Veverve (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Very few closers would count that towards their tallies. I think Kiwimac has followed the rules well here. I'm against the kind of extreme anti-CoI position that inists CoI editor's particpation should be rstrcited to unbiased recitations of facts: I've seen CoI editors be persuaded by the delete case in AfDs so the fact of support is not entirely information-free. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , instead of taking a user who self-identifies as a bishop of that denomination to task, why not solicit that user's assistance in improving the article? That user probably has access to sources that the rest of us don't have, and thus could make a valuable contribution.  Norm1979 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * feel free to ask the person yourself; I have nothing against WP:HEYMANN. I have already done my own research on this group and found nothing supporting its notability. Veverve (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -- This seems to be a real denomination with (if their website is to be believed) about 60 clergy in Nigeria and Cameroon and rather less elsewhere. As with some other recent cases we have discussed, the website has no addresses of places where congregations meet for worship or of the leaders, who often have titles that sound very grand.  If we have some one from the church listening to this discussion, you need to provide INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE that the church meets for worship (and where) - rather than just an e-mail contact address.  If this were a serious denomination, I would have expected to find a "Join us" section, listing places where congregations exist and meet for worship.  In the absence of that, I have to remain in doubt as to whether the church is seriously engaged in Christian ministry.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I don't see any evidence of notability, either in the article or per a Google search. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  14:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete -- limited sources (all by the denomination itself) doesn't suggest notability. Str1977 (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Question - If we decide not to keep, is there a suitable merge/redirect target? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, there is no other article on WP which mentions this group. Veverve (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's always List of Independent Catholic denominations. Str1977 (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be circular, as the page is a list which only contains article which have an article on Wikipedia. Moreover, since it is a list it will not give details or history about any of those denominations; this means that redirecting Reformed Old Catholic Church to List of Independent Catholic denominations would make is so the target article contains no information on the subject (the redirection). Veverve (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be "just a list" and there's also another article mentioned. I was just trying to be helpful, not taking over responsibility where the two lines of information can be moved to. Str1977 (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this has been a good suggestion, and I am open to the possibility that redirect/merge is better than draftify. I only favour draftify because in part (i) AfC's former reputation as a Bermuda Triangle process where content goes to meet a mysterious end no longer is fair, but mostly (ii) we have a CoI editor who would be freed up to improve coverage and I'm gambling this will be good for the content. Normally merge is to be preferred if there is true, encyclopedic content, because it keeps the verifiable content in articlespace. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete; fails to be a citable and notable subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify - No evidence of sources that would allow the church to pass our notability criterion, but an actual and interesting thing; I cannot rule out the existence of adequate sources, so I am reluctant to delete. In the absence of merge/redirect targets, draftification offers an opportunity to find out a better way of documenting the entity. It also frees CoI editors from articlespace restrictions: this freedom can be useful in getting drafts over our notability threshold. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify for improvement as the written sources need proper authentication, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify seems to be the best solution, as it keeps the (admittedly limited) content accessible to Wikipedia users while clearly indicating that it is still a work in process and not of encyclopedia quality. The availability of information that's not readily available elsewhere is a feature that makes Wikipedia more useful than other references, and it also makes it easier for those with actual knowledge and access to sources to improve it.  Deletion would require recreation at a later date if/when reliable sources become available.  Norm1979 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 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.