Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rivendell Christian Communities


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Rivendell Christian Communities
Searching for "Rivendell Christian Communities" clocks up three Google hits. Delete, unless the imprtance of this particular congregation is lined out. Pilatus 14:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Stu 20:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason I started writing a paper on them is because, I wanted to check out how the church community at large treated and welcomed societies misfits. This was one of the first Christian groups I saw that seemed to truely be living this out. This is a small part of a more relational movement called organic churches Groups like this are sprouting up every where and are part of a movement, some have named the Emergent Church. The emergent church is not any one group or leader; its a spontaneous church movement not ran by any religious group or leader. - J. D. Hunt


 * I'm new to this Wikipedia thing. I guess I should have read more about the process and rules. I thought I knew enough to start. I am trying to chronicle a new phenmenon in Christianity that has no leader ang goes by or has different names: 'the post modern movement', 'emergent church', 'organic church' and the list goes on. Some of these names are dubbed on them from within and some from without. This movement is something that I saw that was not represented in the Wikipedia database of knowledge. In a movement with no leaders or unified body, made up of individual expressions,the individual expressions are part of the informational structure of the movement. Example: like when covering the Association of Vineyard Churches individual people, like John Wimber and Lonnie Frisbee are mentioned, and individual churches are mentioned like Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship. I guess I started with the individual pages first and not the movement pages first. I guess I did it ass backwards - J> D. Hunt


 * If you want to write an article on this, and have it accepted, the most important single thing you can do is collect good verifiable source citations. Wikipedia does not accept original research. As far as possible, find newspaper stories, books that have been written about your topic, etc. and try to tell as much of your story as possible in the form of source quotations, with connecting material. For example, the passage above ("I am trying to chronicle... structure of the movement") is a problem, because Wikipedia is not a place for you or anyone else to "chronicle" things. On the other hand, you can say "an emergent church, according to A. B. Christian, is a church which thus-and-such-and-so-and-so. Other observers use other names. For example, D. E. Filosopher prefer to call them them organic churches because their structure etc. etc"


 * Also, if you create an account (free and anonymous), you can put almost anything you like on your personal user page. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * P. P. S. What you describe sure sounds like the Quakers to me! Dpbsmith (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * p.s. I apoligize I couldn't find stuff on emergent church, I guess because I was using caps E vs e in looking for emergent, but other catigories i've tried come up nil'.

What does 'nn religious group or movement' mean. (J. D. Hunt 02:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|24px]] 22:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn religious group or movement. MCB 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Not notable." I'm afraid that in Articles for Deletion people encounter repetitive situations and start to use various abbreviations. Now "notability itself" is a controversial issue within Wikipedia, there are no firm criteria (and some Wikipedians who do not think notability should even be considered at all). Regardless, in the particular case of Rivendell Christian Communities, if it has been mentioned in e.g. a magazine or newspaper article, or a book about emergent churches, or something like that, it is to your advantage cite sources saying so. Read our article on what an encyclopedia is, and then make the best case you can as to why an encyclopedia needs an article on this group. If the only reason for an article on them is that you personally are trying to write an essay on emergent churches, that won't fly. However, if someone who has authored a print publication, or an obviously significant website, has mentioned them as an interesting example of an emergent church, that carries some weight. (No guarantees here, I'm just expressing my personal observations about what affects opinions in an AfD discussion.) Dpbsmith (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * based on ceejayoz personal statements on being liberal and some of his blog postings on his personal site could he be biased against Christianity.
 * So wait, if you're liberal, you're biased against Christianity? Sounds like you're the one who has bias. FCYTravis 03:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not a liberal, I'm a libertarian. Liberals look to big government to solve all of society's woe's, and libertarians believe the government should stay out of almost everything. Libertarians don't believe in any handouts from the government, and that everybody out to be self-supporting. (J. D. Hunt 06:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Comment Someone mentioned signing up, I initially wasn't sure what that was about. I will sign up. I am not affiliated with any of these groups other than an aquaintence. I thought the Richmond, VA aspect of the emergent church, as well as, other regions in the U.S. needed to be chronicled, as they are all unique facets of the whole movement. - J. D. Hunt testing sign up (J. D. Hunt 23:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC))
 * J. D. Hunt, the convention is to indent replies, and to indent them further than the text they're replying to. You indent text by typing colons at the beginning of the line. Each colon represents one additional indentation level, so if you're replying to something with two colons, being your text by typing three colons, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 19:53, 4 November 2005 (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.