Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ancient Apostolic Communion


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ancient Apostolic Communion

 * Delete Fringe group, creator of article is self styled "Patriarch", so very probably a vanity page, possibly could be transferred to userpage? NJW494 14:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many "Fringe groups" in Wikipedia. While I am the Patriarch of the church, I have attempted to make the article as NPOV as possible. If you are to delete this article then we must delete the ones on the Liberal Catholic Church, Old Catholic Church, Independent Catholic, Reformed Catholic Church and the American Catholic Church in the United States, just to name a few. If this is to be an encyclopedia of relevant information then it must contain even the "Fringe groups" as well as the mainstream churches. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 19:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its a vanity article and should at the very least be transferred to your User Page. Your "church" seems to operate out of your house and doesn't appear to be notable. NJW494 22:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have asked for another opinion. Please see Talk:The Ancient Apostolic Communion for further details. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 01:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reliable sources attesting to the notability or to the factuality of the article. Not enough notability to write about the subject with a neutral point of view. Unlike other fringe groups on Wikipedia, this particular group is not particularly notable for its fringe views. Also, runs afoul of our policies on autobiographical topics. The article is actually a candidate for speedy deletion, as I don't even see a claim of notability. However, now that the article has been AfD'd, we can let this run its course. Also, I've removed the request for a third opinion - that is what this page is for. WP:30 is not there to resolve disputes over whether an article should be deleted. Captainktainer * Talk 01:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete until they pull a Heaven's Gate. Carlossuarez46 02:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is uncalled for. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Leaving nastygrams on my talk page will not intimidate me. Your comments on how non-notable churches and ministers deserve a place on Wikipedia demonstrates how little you understand the criteria for inclusion and what makes things notable. So if this group probably numbering no more than Heaven's Gate were to do something notable, like Heaven's Gate, it belongs; right now, it's just not notable. Carlossuarez46 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are so right! I am such a horrible person. Please forgive my intrusion into your Wikipedia. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 20:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're excused; say three Hail Marys and five Our Fathers and go and sin no more!. Carlossuarez46 21:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article has some verifiable sources now. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment To be honest, I don't think that small mentions in a local newspaper are sources that would save this article from being deleted. I know lots of people who have been mentioned in local newspapers and they certainly don't have their own wikipedia article.
 * According to the Verifiability policy, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." According to this article the Augusta Chronicle is 210 years old. It even has its own Wikipedia article which states, "The Augusta Chronicle is the major daily newspaper of Augusta, Georgia and is one of the oldest newspapers in the United States. The paper is known for its coverage of The Masters Tournament, which is played in Augusta." It is by no means a small town newspaper. And even if it was, that is not a criteria for removal of the source. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 11:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact remains that your sect is not worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Your own information reveals your group to be extremely tiny, and possibly just a vehicle for the vanity of its founders.  The sources you mention are too small and too few to be a worthwhile basis for this article and its continued existence (many people get mentioned in local newspaper articles and they certainly are not worthy of Wikipedia articles).  Move it to your user page at the very least, otherwise let this article of yours die.  NJW494 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Judging by the time stamps, not your final word; but don't think that your breach makes your church notable. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * CommentJust out of interest, will you please point out any sects of a similar size to your sect that have their own Wikipedia articles? The Old Catholic groups you mentioned are much larger than the subject of this discussion.  The only similar religious articles that I could think of would be those about some of the modern day pretenders to the Papacy, and those have become rather more noteworthy due to the public/media interest in such people.  If you find articles pertaining to other religious groups with so few adherents and with no other reason for existing on Wikipedia then I would be quite happy to nominate them for deletion.NJW494 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't help but to show your bias. That is why people are leaving Wikipedia. Me included. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Too obscure, and if you can't cope with the wiki, the wiki can't cope with you either. Moreschi 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words and for adhering to the Civility policy. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 20:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding Civility, I'm so happy you showed such civility with me when you so kindly accused me of bias.  Thanks Patriarch.  NJW494 21:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right. Even though I was not talking to you. But it does not matter. I apologize for all my comments and if you wish they can be moved or achieved or pasted on billboards. Thank you all.-- Kf4bdy talk contribs 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Lets be reasonable about this. What did you expect would happen when you posted this vanity article?  Wikipedia isn't a place for self aggrandisement, surely you're aware of that my friend.NJW494 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete It is really not worth the fight. It does not matter our notability nor our size, but rather that we are a "fringe group". It seems this is an unspoken policy just like the fact that a newspaper must be bigger than the New York Times or Washington Post to be considered a verifiable source. So just delete this article. Thank you. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment You really shouldn't be upset that your article is being removed, the removal of such useless vanity articles makes wikipedia a better "place".  As someone who seemingly tries to engage himself in the Wikipedia community then surely you can see the logic in removing bad articles? NJW494 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't consider it a vanity article, but that is a matter of opinion. You believe it is and rallied enough support for your point of view. I just don't have any friends here that would rush to my aid. It is that simple. It is politics. But then again isn't everything? I really am sorry, I hope there are no hard feelings. I misinterpreted many of the comments as personal attacks, like the one claiming we would become a suicide cult. But obviously that was not a personal attack just as statement necessary to make sure the vote counted. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have never encountered any of the other users on this talkpage before. They're simply concerned Wikipedians who are striving to make Wikipedia better.  I doubt anyone here is deliberately trying to spite you.NJW494 22:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Article and discussion here evidence a group on the size of an individual house of worship (and one of the smaller ones at that), rather than a true denomination.  We don't have, so far as I can tell, an article on the group from which it split, which is a informative but not dispositive sign.  References aren't online and available (for free) for quick and easy testing, but the quotes from them in the article indicate passing mentions, not articles primarily about the AAC.  It therefore is not notable, and does not meet our policies requiring verifiability and prohibiting original research.  GRBerry 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. ENTIRE ARTICLE VIOLATES NPOV BECAUSE IT IS EXTREME MINORITY VIEW. WP:NPOV Non-notable. Not encyclopedic. Per Wiki guidelines extreme minority groups, positions, etc., are not to be presented. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Including extreme minority positions gives the false impression to users that the position is widely accepted and somewhat important even if the article does not give the impression that it is either the majority view or a widely held minority view. RickReinckens 08:40, 8 October 2006 (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.