Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Living Word Fellowship (3rd nomination)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Living Word Fellowship
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominating for deletion due to the following points:
 * The very inception of the article appears to be based on some sort of personal grudge by the creator of the article, who in the first AFD discussion admitted himself that the subject was not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
 * An accurate article cannot be written on the Living Word Fellowship without conducting original research. The creator wrote in the AFD discussion: “It is nearly impossible to ascertain the beliefs of this church without attending regularly.” The subject’s official website says that the founder “had authored more than 11,000 recorded sermons and hundreds of written messages.” After exhaustive research, I can find no third-party source that has performed enough research to produce a reliable source on this subject.
 * “Another Gospel”, cannot be considered reliable when even reviewers on Amazon are noting glaring errors (please see debbieannconway’s review at: http://www.amazon.com/Another-Gospel-Ruth-Tucker/dp/0310404401). The book also cannot be considered neutral enough to be the foundation of an entire article as it is clear in its attempt to critique religions according to orthodox Christian beliefs and comes to conclusions based on a pre-existing agenda. LikesPoodles (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC) — LikesPoodles (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong keep - There are plenty of nontrivial third-party sources describing this religious organization, including (but not limited to) the book Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement, the People magazine article about Tony Cox's report of his experiences, and Tony Cox's documentary film. The fact that these sources are not a sufficient basis for writing the complete and definitive story of this organization does not change the fact that the topic is notable. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This ticket is the subject of OTRS ticket #2008091810047725. Please do NOT close this debate without allowing it to run the full length. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that process for process' sake? We know the subject is notable, and this is the second afd in a week by a SPA. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The nominator being a single-purpose account who's nominated this article for the second time in eight days sould be grounds for a Procedural Keep, but the article can stand on it's own with multiple independant sources cited. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Easily meets notability criteria, per reasons put forward by Orlady and others in the previous two AfD discussions. Attempts to resolve content questions of the IDONTLIKEIT variety through AfD shouldn't be encouraged. John Nevard (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the text of this AfD nomination is exactly the same as the previous one. What's changed? Surely this only works if you're a left-wing activist paranoid about the CIA. John Nevard (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability is not the issue. Rather, all references are to a primary source, contrary to the policies of Wikipedia. There simply are no third-party sources that can be found. The 22 year old People Magazine article is actually about Tony Cox and contains quotes from Mr. Cox about his personal experiences with the organization, but contains no third-party research. Likewise, Mr. Cox's film about his life is clearly a primary source. The book Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement, besides being unreliable, again is made up of references the Cox film. BTW, this is the second nomination, because the first was closed by an administrator prior to any discussion. LikesPoodles (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep LikesPoodles, you're not supposed to "vote" multiple times in an AFD. This article has several reliable sources, and as such is notable.  Even if the one book is considered insufficiently reliable (and I can't see why one average online person's arguments make it unreliable), the others are good.  Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - was just trying to comment, not to vote again. The organization may well be notable; I am not arguing that one way or another. The problem is one of reliability and verifiability. There are NOT several reliable sources. If you actually look at them, all three that are cited are based on ONE person's opinions/experiences, and are clearly primary sources. Further, with regard to the book, Amazon book reviews show that there is controversy over its reliability. LikesPoodles (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the content covered in the reliable sources is factual, the fact that it was covered makes the organisation notable. John Nevard (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the policy of Wikipedia was to NOT use primary sources? If no third-party sources/research exist, then the matter does not belong in Wikipedia.  In other words, I may be extremely notable, but Wikipedia is going to wait until someone writes my biography, rather than quoting from my web page.  All three sources referred to as being "reliable" quote ONE former congregant, who is clearly a primary source.  They cannot be considered to be more reliable than representations made by the organization itself, which is also a primary source.  LikesPoodles (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They're secondary sources from third parties. They may be based partially off the work of a ex-member, but this doesn't make them any less reliable or primary sources. John Nevard (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If it has 100 congregations, it's notable, and that's supported by a reference. What was the substance of the OTRS ticket? a request to remove, or a complaint of inaccuracy? DGG (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The organization's website lists 11 congregations, not 100. I am not sure that the 100 figure was ever correct; however, the reference is from a book that is 20 years old. LikesPoodles (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia covers a number of once-significant organisations. While this organisation may not be historical as such, that 100 congregations existed at one point is another claim on notability. John Nevard (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep looks like a solid article to me--well sourced, etc. Historical?  even better!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I think the real issue here is not notability, per se, but the reliability of the sources. The Living Word Fellowship had erroneous statements made about it in the 70s, and the majority of the people who made those original false have since realized how they were wrong in their criticism (as one example, Walter Martin's book on cults used to contain info on the subject, but in recent editions, it is no longer even mentioned). However, the misinformation persists because it was put in print and disseminated further by authors who didn't know any better (such as Tucker's Another Gospel). The real problem in this particular case is that while the subject is notable, it is not really notable enough for reliable articles or books to have been written recently. All the sources currently being used in The Living Word Fellowship article are certainly permissable, but only if we are not looking deeper at their reliability. I don't think we can trust a People magazine article that is basically a primary source (it's mostly a transcript of an interview with Cox, with obviously little outside research). The main sourcing (and content) of Another Gospel is Anthony Cox's self-made documentary which also contains little research beyond his own opinions. What this amounts to are biased primary sources that seem reliable but create an inaccurate article. This is nearly the equivalent of arguing that it's fine for anyone who has ever attended a service at a church in The Living Word Fellowship post their original research on the subject. If even the creator of the article is saying that original research is necessary to write a Wikipedia-worthy article, I don't know why this should be kept; reliable coverage has not been significant enough for this subject. Jeremiah (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * FTR, "Another Gospel" is not currently readable online, so I can't access it to check sources, but I recall that the sourcing appeared to be fairly extensive. I don't claim to know the agendas of the various people who are committed to attacking this article and the book "Another Gospel," but I do note that this review of the book, in a Christian journal, called it "in several respects, the best general textbook on the cults", said it was "more respectful of the cults than any other such textbook," and criticized it primarily for "lacking in biblical critiques of the cults" and not citing the journal in which the review appeared. --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of Another Gospel and Tucker cites five sources: the Anthony Cox documentary, Walter Martin's 1980 edition of The New Cults (which, as I've said before, he's taken out all references to The Living Word in subsequent editions), and three messages by John Robert Stevens. While her research on other subjects in the book is certainly extensive, her sourcing is fairly limited for The Living Word Fellowship, especially considering the fact that John Robert Stevens authored more than 10,000 messages in his lifetime. Jeremiah (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a pretty small article, but the sourcing is commensurate with the claims. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- seems a legitimate articel to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Lots of agendas here, but the article has WP:RS for notability and should be kept.  Springnuts (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not in question here. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. the article appears to only have one reliable secondary source. no one has provided any evidence of notability other than this source, which is insufficient. as very few people have access to this sole source the number of keep votes here are surprising. all the other references are either unreliable or primary. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2008 (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.