Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformed Presbytery in North America


 * 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 wasDeleted, no RS that are independent. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reformed Presbytery in North America

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable church Corpx 18:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable or verifiable sources. Only sources provided are from their own organization. DarkAudit 18:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication of notability and I can't find any Hut 8.5 20:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm ordinarily sympathetic to articles about smaller denominations in a well-known tradition, but I don't think this one qualifies. Their history as this group begins only in 2000. Claims of being successors to an earlier group will need better sources. The article is very polemical in tone, which needs to be moderated if it's to survive this AfD. I think this one is possibly salvagable, but it needs a lot of work. -- BPMullins | Talk 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per BPMullins. Even assuming this group dates back to 1840 as they claim, the article indicates that they have had great difficulty maintaining a full governing board (greater presbytery), because that would require two ministers, a number they have not been able to achieve for much of their history. The history of the group as narrated in this article is very tendentious and would need to be revised to achieve a neutral point of view. The article would also require sources to indicate that this group is known to outsiders (historians of religion, etc.) as a denomination. --Metropolitan90 03:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment edited because the biased portions have been removed. --Metropolitan90 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Allow me to point out that this article is currently the subject of a vandalism/edit war with an anonymous user. St. Anselm and I have been reverting what someone referred to as "frighteningly POV edits".  I'd vote "Keep", but hopefully protect it so that it can only be edited by users who are logged in (I have a lurking suspicion that the anonymous user has an account already; if he (or she) were forced to log in, we might be able to get some productive discussion going).  While I'm not sure of the notability in terms of size, I think they're notable as the only example I know of who continue the practise of lining out (which was historically practised by all Presbyterians), and hold it as a point of principle (see Presbyterian_worship) for details).  I'm not associated with them, but I've been aware of them for a while; I'm pretty sure that the claims of being successors to the earlier group are true (I heard about them before 2000, and my Mum remembers hearing about them when she was younger), but I also think it'd be difficult to find references for a lot of this stuff that isn't from documents internal to their denomination.  -- TimNelson 04:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Tim Nelson. We definitely need to keep this article for all those who wish to navigate the maze that is Presbyterianism. StAnselm 05:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Keep, for reasons stated above. They are old and notable, especially for their internet presence among Reformed Christians on the web. Yahnatan 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I really see no sound way we can decide on denominations except by regarding any organized group which has references to show it is as Notable. It is not appropriate for us to argue over how distinct the doctrines must be, or how many the believers. DGG 05:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Am I missing something? Where is their internet presence? Where are the references? Even their official web site has been unavailable throughout most of this AfD discussion. --Metropolitan90 08:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect the site referred to is http://www.covenanter.org/, although I'll let Yahnatan speak for himself. -- TimNelson 09:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the internet presence is more for the "Steelites" in general than the specific RPNA. For instance, [Still Waters Revival Books www.swrb.com/] has a very strong Steelite influence, and has a lot of visitors to it. Supporters of Steelite doctrine have been strongly present in many Reformed discussion groups, despite their small numbers. 1, 2. Perhaps it would merit moving to Steelite instead? Yahnatan 11:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that would work; I get the impression that some think that the term "Steelite" is POV. I can't think of a good name that covers both RPNA and SWRB (and the church the SWRB owner goes to).  -- TimNelson 13:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'Steelite' is probably a poor choice, but a rename to a more comprehensive topic is probably the best choice. We've got a couple of days to think about this; let's all consider a new name. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:39, 15 May 2007 (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.