Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabbath Rest Advent 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   keep.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sabbath Rest Advent Church

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication it meets the requirements of WP:ORG. All sources appear to be self-published. Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zad68 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: the main website is German, and the German name is "Sabbatruhe-Advent-Gemeinschaft." It has a paragraph in Die Kirchen, Sondergruppen und religiösen Vereinigungen: ein Handbuch, but I don't know what it says. StAnselm (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Though this is a badly written article, probably with POV issues, it is an article about a denomination, not merely one about a single congregation church. It is probably a splinter of the Seventh Day Adventists.  I do not know how significant, but certainly NOT NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't know how significant it is, and there aren't any sources, then how do you know it's "certainly NOT NN"? Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 14:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I could find no significant coverage outside of books published by the church itself, required by notability guideline WP:ORG. The history of the denomination cited in the article says (p 14) that they have only 2000 members worldwide. Edison (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep because authors/editors are working on it (3rd party sources, neutrality, etc).Rmorstadt (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They may be working on it, but they still haven't found any sources yet that actually discuss the church and comply with WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Third party sources added (see references 2, 3, 6-9). PTtrans (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reference 2 is from a Wikipedia mirror. A quick check of the other sources in the article indicate many are not about this specific church, or fail WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you mean Jayjg, every third party reference given (2, 3, 6-9) specifically mentions the Sabbath Rest Advent Church. Nor are any of these sources self-published or questionable. Do you have a conflict of interest or was your "quick check" too quick? PTtrans (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reference 2 is a Wikipedia mirror. As such it's not reliable. References 12 through 18 do not mention the Sabbath Rest Advent Church. Reference 4, 5 and 11 are self-published by the Sabbath Rest Advent Church. Reference 8 and 11 are not in English, and so cannot be easily verified. If we were to remove all material based on unreliable, self-published, or unrelated sources, there would be almost nothing left of this article. And while I have no "conflict of interest", you are a WP:SPA who has only edited Wikipedia on the topic of this church. Please make more accurate statements. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is pretty bad, although a bit less so now, if I say so myself. I've added a proper URL for the German handbook that was cited already; its inclusion there is enough for me to establish this as notable. That I'd ever run to the defense of a Seventh-Day Adventist church is beyond me, but there it is. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to User:Drmies. The references added demonstrate notability, as one would expect for an international denomination. StAnselm (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Pretty clearly a keep, I chime in only because this is on the old open AfD list.--Milowent • hasspoken  22:14, 2 February 2012 (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.