Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States


 * 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States


Not notable. According to its webpage, it has five congregations. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I am the original author of this article (HanleyBri), and was a founding elder of this denomination. The WPCUS was discontinued approximately in 2010 - with two ministers and myself going into the RPCNA and another minister going into the Hanover Presbytery. I recommend this article for deletion.     — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanleyBri (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I could find no independent references to substantiate the notability of this splinter group of 5 congregations established this year. Their church magazine and website did not state their membership totals or provide other evidence they were important enough to have an article about their new denomination. Wikipedia is not for purposes of advertising or promoting a new enterprise which has not otherwise achieved importance and notability. Edison 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Continuing groups like this one are an active subject in many denominations (seeWikiProject_Anglicanism for one I'm more familiar with). I didn't know the Presbyterians were having the same debates, but based on the Anglican precedent I think this one should stay. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your first sentence. Please rephrase/elaborate. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. Now maybe if tehre were something in the article explaining why they split off and if it was over something juicy it could stay but as it is, nope. Otto4711 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article does include that information, for those able to read between the lines.
 * 'They proclaim creationism within the space of six normal length 24 hour days. '
 * 'They affirm male leadership reflected in ordination to church office.'
 * The Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) doesn't require a belief in Young Earth Creationism, ordains women, and in general is a mainline liberal denomination. These folks reject all of that and seem closer to Scotland's Wee Frees. [forgot to sign!] -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles shouldn't require readers to read anything other than the lines. An article that keeps its information between the lines is useless. If there were verifiable sources that explained the history of what I'm assuming is some sort of schism between this group and the main body of the church, then that would be potentially a good article. Otto4711 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading on their website, it seems like they split because they didn't like the changes that had been made to the Westminster Standards since the 1600s. In any case, they're very new and very small and don't seem to have made much of a splash. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I said in a similar AfD, we either delete all religious orders/ groups or we keep all -- the only way to demonstrate that Wikipedia is secular and not religiously biased Alf photoman 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thought experiment: Let's say two geographically remote, nondenominationl tiny churches of little worldly significance come together to form a group which they call Tiny Churches of North America. This group is established to restore the purity of the faith. It never gets any press coverage, never grows, and peters out after 20 years. Is it worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia at the beginning of its existence? At the end? I'd say no on both counts. What if it had five small churches? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about small non-demoninational churches uniting here, but a separation from a large and well-established body. This isn't just about the Westminster Presbyterians, or about Presbyterians. The same sort of separation is happening throughout American protestantism, and (at least in Anglican circles) worldwide. I'm arguing for keeping this article because it's illustrative of the larger phenomenon. (BTW, we do seem to have a large number of articles on various "Popes" who claim that they're the real Roman Catholic Church. I don't recall AfD discussions about them, but maybe I'm just too new.) -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which large and well-established body did they separate from? As far as I can tell, they split off from another small group. I agree with you about documenting the phenomenon of schisms, but I don't think it follows that every minor split need be given its own page. Some just aren't that notable or even footnotable (see WP:N). As for the "real" popes, some are notable and others aren't. If I claimed to be pope, I don't think I'd deserve a page. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is not a question of numbers but a question of permanence. Take any denomination and they could disappear in 20 years and be just a footnote in history -- yet there will be a footnote and a good encyclopedia has an explanation for these footnotes Alf photoman 14:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Further comment: This article neither asserts its own notability nor does it seem that substantive, verifiable information from independent reliable sources is available. It certainly fails the Google test. A Presbyterian Church History professor has the most substantive reference I could find on his blog. Still, while I wouldn't object to this denomination showing up in the context of a larger article, it doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own page. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Article does not assert notability. Weak keep as notability seems to have been established below. Chondrite
 * 'Keep per AlfDGG 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: WP:NOT and should not have an article for every single religious denomination, sect, or splinter group in existance, regardless of notability. Excluding non-notable religious organizations is in no way evidence that Wikipedia is non-secular. Including non-notable organizations would provide evidence only that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information.  The individual non-notable groups may or may not be part of a larger trend, but the trend itself, if it is sufficiently notable, is properly documented in an article about the trend rather than a lot of articles about non-notable organizations. Chondrite 09:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This new denomination was reported in the Banner of Truth magazine in 2006 and has representation in five states in the Union.  Also of interest is that international discussions with groups in England and Australia are on their way.  Mind you this is not just five congregation - but this is a denomination which have locked arms together.   In fact it is the only full subscription denomination that I know of in the United States and the only American Presbyterian denomination that has a substitution fund for it's ministers. -- Note: It was commented that we are like the Wee Frees - however we are more like The Wee Wee Frees.  HanleyBri | Talk 9:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-trivial discussion in Banner of Truth would help to establish notability (but the guideline requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources). Banner of Truth issues for 2006 do not seem to be available online. Can you provide a quote from the article showing that coverage is non-trivial? -- Chondrite 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Quote: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed.  During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS).   The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations."  [Banner of Truth, April Issue, page 14] Note: We were also mentioned in the British Church Newspaper on January 3rd 2006. -- HanleyBri 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming that these independent sources can be verified, I am changing my opinion from delete to weak keep. Chondrite 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * HanleyBri, I am not yet convinced. Re international discussions: the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and future, potential significance is not a factor in current significance. Re having churches "in five states of the Union": I see only four states listed on the denomination's webpage, but even then, since there are only five congregations total, that they are in four or five states doesn't seem particularly notable. As for the quote, I don't think two sentences that merely state the existence of the denomination qualifies as non-trivial coverage. What did the British Church Newspaper have to say? This is an American denomination; did any American publications take note of the WPCUS? What is a "substitution fund" and why does it make the WPCUS notable? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Quote: 'The WPCUS is concerned at the spread of liberal teaching (such as Federal Vision theology) within Presbyterianism in the USA. Federal Vision theology questions doctrines such as Justification by Faith, and the Perseverance of the Saints.   In the event of various USA presbyterian groupings failing to deal firmly with such liberalizing trends, the WPCUS could well prove to be a new home for individual Presbyterian churches and minister who are unhappy with the stance taken by their own denominations.'  As to your question regarding five states; we plan to have a congregation in Delaware in short order.  As to your question on a substitution fund, sorry I meant to write Sustentation fund.  It's a means of congregations joining together financially and there is an entire history of it's use from Charles the Second of England and its continued use.  You will find a partial mention under the Free Church of Scotland (1843-1900)/ Under Finances --  HanleyBri 6:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I’m a minister of the denomination from which some of the WPCUS congregations come, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). Yet, I recognize the WPCUS has taken an unique confessional position, reaffirming the original version not only of the Westminster Standards but also the original form of government and worship approved in England and Scotland in the 1640's. In this, they offer the possibility of union with other like minded groups on the basis of historic confessional Presbyterianism. Their similarity to older existing Scottish and Irish denominations also makes them notable. Whatever their future may be, their efforts should be noted by Wikipedia if it is to be a reliable and useful reference tool. Jglennferrell 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)J. Glenn Ferrell
 * Keep: I have studied the ferment and churn of British and North American Presbyterianism for almost 40 years. Splitting, formation, and merging of denominations of various sizes is an important part of that history.  Many small groups have come existence for a brief time but have lasting influence upon the English speaking Presbyterian and Reformed landscape.  For example, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES) came into existence in 1965, and disappeared in 1982 when they were received in to the larger Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).  The RPCES was itself a merger of elements from the Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC) and the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America (RPCNA).  Though the RPCES remained a denomination for only 17 years, it is indisputable they have a continuing influence upon the PCA.  Their brief history is essential to understanding American Presbyterianism.
 * The point of WP:Notability is that any subject of sufficient modern or historical importance to be included in this encyclopedia will have received coverage by multiple independent sources. Chondrite 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Is this Notability thing fairly new? I've been editing on Wikipedia now and then for nearly two years, and have come across loads of instances of historical and present-day individual churches and church buildings (let alone denominations) having an article on Wikipedia, without anyone objecting.  I'm starting to wonder whether there is a complete change of atmosphere on Wikipedia, with nowhere near the level of freedom there once was.  It seems to be getting much more like government and corporations in the way people are trying to patrol/control it. Not the friendly place it once was!  On looking at the Notability page I see that it is heavily disputed, and personally I often go to Wikipedia for information I can't find readily elsewhere.  And where would Notability leave articles about long-forgotten people who were very well known in their day but who are only covered in books, not on the net!  This is the sort of thing Wikipedia is ideal for.  Give Wikipedia back to the people, and stop the stuffy academic types controlling it!
 * --PeterR 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)--PeterR 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not paper, so there is room for many subjects that would not be covered in a traditional encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a directory, so some criteria for inclusion need to be met.  Removal of articles on non-notable subjects is an important function.  The existance of similar articles on non-notable subjects is not a reason to include any article.  Although details are disputed, there seems to be a broad consensus (as reflected in the various notability guidelines) that coverage by multiple independent sources is a fundamental criterion for inclusion.  Quoting Jimbo : "It's all about whether we can write a proper article with reliable third party sources and no original research."   There is no requirement that sources be available online.  Chondrite 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral. We're not here to predict the future, so whether this denomination grows or shrinks is of no concern. What I can't work out is whether it's notable or not. Is there an article for "assorted small fundamentalist sects arising by schism from Presbyterianism" ? If there is, we have an obvious course of action. If not, I'm not sure. WMMartin 15:15, 5 December 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.