Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Little Children of Jesus Christ

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. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Little Children of Jesus Christ

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a hundred percent sure what to make of this, frankly. Long-term (since July 2009) tagged for notability; WP:BEFORE gives nothing, while the sources cited in the article are inaccessible and the statements they give not particularly enticing. I'm bringing this to AfD rather than prodding it because while it certainly looks like a deletion candidate, I can't say I'm sure what's going on here. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete All the references to the name I found were obviously taken from or were indiscriminate lists of denominations without any information beyond the name. It's impossible to tell whether this is more than a single congregation. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article claims it is present in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. If that is true, then this would be a bona fide denomination which existed at some point, whether or not it still does. (I have read his encyclopedia in the past, but I don't have access to a copy of it any more.) However, Melton's criteria for inclusion are really low, he includes defunct fringe groups who only ever had a handful of followers, all he seems to really demand is that (a) he has good reason to believe that it exists (or used to exist) (b) it is a bona fide group, however small, as opposed to just a single lone individual. So, if the only RS for a group is inclusion in Melton's Encyclopedia, possibly that is not enough for Wikipedia notability. Also, I doubt most of the facts from this article come from Melton's Encyclopedia, since his article on a group like this would be much briefer. So if we were to keep this article on the basis of Melton's Encyclopedia, most of the content would be gone. And maybe at that point it might be better merged into some sort of list of "small denominations for which we have a reliable source for their existence but not enough reliably-sourced info to actually make an article" Mr248 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete -- This is a denomination, which I might have voted to keep, but a denomination with 100 members in 8 congregations is surely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.