Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (second nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 defaulting to keep. Tyrenius (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not notable: at most just one reliable secondary source independent of the subject (WP:N), if that. Major contributors are church members (WP:COI).

Half the article is a quotation of a court case over internet domains. A court case is a primary source and does not establish notability. Other references are:

  • most just to its own website
  • many to Seventh-day Adventist sources which don't even mention Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (CSDA)
  • school - had 3 students and 1 teacher in 2004/05 according to the state of Texas website [1] (XLS format) (see line 148 under "CSDA Christian Academy") [P.S. the school only "existed for just a few months" according to this talk page edit, later claimed by Zahakiel, a member]
  • one[2] to religioustolerance.org, a site run primarily by one person, with four assistants. Mentions CSDA as a paragraph on the Seventh-day Adventist article. Author is not an "established expert" (WP:SPS), and simply cites back to CSDA's own website.
  • other obscure references
  • a single reference to one article in a local newspaper (I haven't checked this source).

Searches reveal:

I have informed its creator and the major contributors I am aware of, as a courtesy measure. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The church of Walter McGill a.k.a. Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a church of mirrors that fraudulently masquerades as an association of multiple churches.1. I believe that a careful study of the article Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax exposes the alleged worldwide church and Christian academy of Walter McGill as a shameful exaggeration and a hoax. By hoax, I mean, "something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage." --e.Shubee (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per multiple sources cited from numerous independent publications, (e.g. Waymarks and In His Steps) a detailed article in a well-known newspaper (The Clarion-Ledger), and per the outcome of the last AfD. Nominator's argument that "Major contributors are church members (WP:COI)" is not an argument against the article itself, this is a behavioral guideline, not a content guideline; nor is it unusual regarding other articles about churches in Wikipedia. According to WP:PSTS primary sources may be used: a) to make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and b) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. These sources are so used. Nom. seems to have (as stated) not checked all resources before making the nomination. ◄Zahakiel► 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Colin MacLaurin. Also because this article was totally based on one person's opinion and Original Research. Readers are led to the interpretation by the editor; the sources are not verifiable nor are they reliable. --Maniwar (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning towards Delete as I can not find any independent 3rd party sources to help claim notability GtstrickyTalk or C 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, that sums it up very well. STORMTRACKER 94 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. nat.utoronto 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from nom. Note that Zahakiel (2nd comment above) is a member of the group. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Yes, and that has always been freely disclosed. This does not address the actual argument I have presented. ◄Zahakiel► 01:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fairly convinced that the CSDA church is not very notable. Can Zahakiel or other CSDA people provide a statistic to demonstrate that the church is in fact larger than 4 members? If they can, perhaps it could beargued that the article deserves to remain. Tonicthebrown (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I'm not sure what you mean by "statistic," but the Clarion-Ledger article was published quite some years ago, I think 1999, and has interviews with a group of several members that were currently living on a farm in TN. This "four members" nonsense was/is the mental by-product of one very antagonistic Wikipedia editor from early in the history of this article's development. While the C/L publication is paper, and not published online, I can provide you with scans of the article if you would like. I am not convinced at this point it will make a difference, though the nom's argument largely consists of what I would consider to be a viewpoint (i.e., the article can't be accurate because members have contributed, since I happen to be a member my reasoning cannot be objective or should be given less weight, and since it doesn't appear in the mainstream Adventist publications the lawsuit isn't a big deal, even though a number of independent Adventist groups have repeatedly referenced not only the lawsuit, but the group's beliefs, etc.) but for the record I can provide you with an electronic copy of that particular source. It was, I believe, a factor in the article being kept the last time, and nothing's changed since then. ◄Zahakiel► 01:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Thank you for your response. By "statistic" I simply mean a published, reliable source stating how many members are part of CSDA and how many CSDA congregations exist. A newspaper article containing "interviews with a group of several members" clearly does not qualify. I find it hard to understand why something as basic as a membership statistic or church count cannot be provided in the article. In addition, I agree with the nominator that ultimately this is an issue of notability. Generally I do not think that individual churches or congregations merit Wikipedia articles, unless they are a particularly large or influential church such as Hillsong or Mars Hill Church. Zahakiel, can you tell us: how many congregations are there in CSDA, and what is its approximate membership (i.e. less than or greater than 100? 500?)? If statistics such as this can't be provided, then the notability of CSDA remains in serious question.
Frankly, in my opinion, a single newspaper article and a bunch of WIPO/court rulings does not establish notability. (Tonicthebrown (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment from nom. Nomination is based on notability – subject has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Besides, SDAPI is not "mainstream Adventist publications" – many are well left- or right-of-centre who are quite happy to publish controversial material. Not that it matters, since the burden of sources lies on the contributor (WP:PROVEIT). Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - A lot could have happened since 1999. A group of four members could have dwindled to two. --e.Shubee (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I disagree that it has not, particularly since you didn't check one of the main sources included in the article. That is completely independent, definitely third-party, and quite significant. By that, in conjunction with the legal documentation (on two counts: the WIPO and the TN District Court, one international and one local to the U.S.), which is a matter of public record, the notability guideline has been met. From WP:PROVEIT: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." It is. As I said to Tonic, you're welcome to the scan if you like; it's appeared in published media. ◄Zahakiel► 02:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Court cases are primary sources and have no bearing on notability. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hence the "in conjunction." Primary sources may be used "with care" and along with other secondary sources, (i.e., newspaper reports, newsletter reports, magazine articles) all of which exist in this case. Contributors are required to cite sources, not provide them as handouts to those who don't have immediate access. That being said, I've made the offer. ◄Zahakiel► 04:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Primary sources have no bearing on notability, as mentioned above. WP:N says independent, reliable, SECONDARY sources. shoy 17:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - This appears to be a very minor splinter group of a church, which is involved in a litigious war with the parent from whom it split. There appears to be no indication that the church has more than a single congregation. We regularly delete individual churches, and I am not sure whther this one ought to survive. If it does, the order of the sections should be reversed, so that details of its belief come foirst and its fight with the Seventh Day Adventists comes at the end. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is no evidence that the worldwide church of Walter McGill has more than four members. --e.Shubee (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hasn't this already been done once? I'm not seeing anything new here on the "Delete" side of things, and E.Shubee's O.R. website has had some lengthy treatment already as well, having gone through mediation. --Qinael (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is new is that there are editors that now see that my assessment was correct since the beginning and therefore have changed their minds. --e.Shubee (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Qinael? Do they have a vested interest? They made 14 edits before arguing "keep" above, with every edit to the CSDA church article, an image upload for it, and doctrines it supports. Are you a church member? "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." (WP:AFD)
  • User:Zahakiel was informed in the first nomination about disclosure, but omitted to in this discussion.
Policies have also been violated in the previous AFD nomination by users who argued "keep":
  • User:Camael, the page creator. 24 edits to date, almost all about CSDA. Are they be a member? That the page was created with no sources suggests they are. [P.S. Just noticed: user claims nothing to do with the group; yet still did not disclose they contributed majorly to the article -Col]
  • (User:RaveenS's user page has been deleted, and account blocked indefinitely for "Harassment/stalking". This editor is not necessarily a CSDA member, but is apparently not reliable, either way)
This is lack of honesty and disclosure at the very best, and stealth canvassing, meat- or sock puppetry at the worst. "Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using 'sock puppets' (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted." (WP:AFD) "For the purposes of dispute resolution... when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." (WP:MEAT) Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty bad violation of WP:AGF. For the record, I have no idea who RaveenS is, and I am not not any of the other individuals voting "Keep." So far as I know they are not each other either. It's possible that some people actually believe that the sources provided are valid, amazing as that appears to be. There has been no lack of disclosure, absolutely no lack of honesty, at least not on my part... and claiming meat puppetry is a fairly heavy accusation. I recomment you take this to an IP check if you wish, but don't pollute this AfD with baseless charges, or by crying foul on the previous, completed discussion. We can keep this civil, but you're going to have to allow for differences in opinion and cool it with the unfounded ad hominems. ◄Zahakiel► 04:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Yes, I am a member of the CSDA Church. I would appreciate an assumption of good faith in your arguments; quite frankly, I am not a common editor to Wikipedia, and was not aware of the requirement that I disclose vested interest. I do not believe you have read your sources correctly in more than one account however - my editing history does not show "every edit to the CSDA Church article", it reveals edits to entries regarding the Antichrist, the Sabbath, and an article on Satanism as well.
Regarding prior discussions, I fail to see how the sources cited from the SDA Independant publishers are to be given less weight because they are "not mainstream". This seems like a point of view from the nom rather than a logical argument as to their validity - the fact is that these papers have a very wide circulation and reputation among Adventist constituency. Is there a rule somewhere I am not aware of that says to be a valid third party source, they must be "mainstream", and then goes on to define what "mainstream" means? Qinael (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank-you for your honesty about your vested interest as a group member. We're all still learning the policies. Since your last edit was almost 11 months ago, I was very surprised you even noticed this deletion discussion. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We go by arguments, not by head count. This is a splinter movement, and the article mainly discusses its attempts to establish itself as a part of the general SDA movement. thus saying that it isn't in the SDA index, polemics from the main body such as "Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax," and similar documents produced by one of the party are not evidence that the organisation doesnt exist or isn't notable--they're the very essence on unreliable sources for notability or lack thereof. That a court ruled they were not entitled to use the name doesn't prove they don't exist as a religious movement. I am always a little dubious about attempts to say that a splinter religious group is not notable in the WP sense. DGG (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And what evidence do you have that this group consists of more than four individuals? What number out of an 11 million member denomination constitutes a splinter movement and what makes a four-member group notable? --e.Shubee (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go again... you still can't seem to move past that "4-member" statement you badly misquoted so many years ago. Personal dislike has no place in a discussion of articles. ◄Zahakiel► 04:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I only asked relevant questions, which you can't answer. --e.Shubee (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been "history" with e.Shubee's editing (see his block log). Incidentally he is most certainly not "main body" (see his website), but please everybody stick to the topic. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why disparage me for asking relevant questions that should be answered? --e.Shubee (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the best book on the church not even mention this breakoff, despite listing a large number of breakoffs and ultra-conservative groups (and liberals too)? Seeking a Sanctuary (2nd edn 2006; Google Books preview), written by ex-Adventists - an Oxford professor and a journalist. Widely regarded as the best book on the church (see reviews in its article, which I wrote incidentally).</ref> The chapter "The Ethics of Schism" describes many breakaway groups - why is csda not mentioned? Why does the chapter "The Self-Supporting Movement" describe many ultra-conservative groups but not mention csda? As I said in the nomination, there is not a single result from Google Books.

Many non-mainstream Adventist articles exist on Wikipedia: liberal,[1] very conservative[2] and breakoff groups and individuals,[3] at least half written by me. Some groups are notable; this one is not. One citation is Pilgrim's Rest, which is apparently the self-published work (hence irrelevant to notability) of a single person, and certainly not "reliable".[4] There remains a single reliable third-party source (one magazine article), which apparently testifies to a handful of people in one location in 1999. Is that notable? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You certainly have written a lot on Adventism in Wikipedia, and congratulations. It does not, however, make you a one-man jury regarding issues of notability. We have guidelines and policies for that, and not "liking" the resources provided, or thinking that particular ex-Adventists should say something about an SDA offshoot before it's "notable enough" doesn't constitute an argument against their presence and utility. Just because "the best" book on the Church and/or its offshoots (a matter of individual opinion, btw) within Adventism does not mention the CSDA Church certainly does not indicate that the movement has not been noted by other resources over a course of many years. Just because the SDA scholars have not published dissertations on this belief system does not mean it has not been mentioned by independent publications, (it has) well distributed newsletters (it has) and newspaper articles near the main local congregation in TN (it has). You ask, "is that notable?" I say, "Yes." The references make it clear to any semi-informed non-initiate, without any need for interpretation, that such a group exists, such a group has been involved in unique legal disputes with the mainstream body, such a group has beliefs that are unique in Adventism. This seems to upset a lot of people, some (not the nominator, of course) even going so far as to use a lot of effort in making attack sites, and a few of the more enterprising attempting repeatedly, though futilely, to get these irredeemably inaccurate smear pages used as reliable sources in Wikipedia... to the astonishment of this editor. It's true that some ofshoots are noisy enough to have the main body deign to notice them, but degree of notability is not the issue. Having said that, I want to make it clear that I was content just to !vote "Keep," explain my reasoning, and leave it at that. The somewhat contentious conversation that has resulted from this AfD has continued to attract my attention, however... ◄Zahakiel► 23:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary Please note the following from the Notability guideline: "A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability..." This almost certainly excludes the WIPO and court proceedings from establishing notability. (And these are't even "news coverage". Tonicthebrown (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were the case, and that's conceding a bit, it does not exclude the newsletter articles. None of the references provided were done in a vaccuum, and examining them independently rather than the overall list is not doing justice to the WP:N guideline for presuming notability. I think an objective point of view, which seems sadly lacking here (see the comment just below, for crying out loud... that editor has been blocked for his disruptive and biased attacks on this topic and its contributors) would recognize that. There's a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT involved, just read on. ◄Zahakiel► 03:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As noted earlier, a lot could have happened since 1999. A group of four members could have dwindled to two. --e.Shubee (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. What "newsletter articles" are you referring to? Are you talking about that single Clarion-Ledger article? That hardly establishes notability. And it is not "conceding a bit" to consider the WIPO and court rulings as "a short burst" of coverage. That is something that is beyond question. There is absolutely no evidence that there will be "long-term notability" of this topic. Once the naming issue is legally settled, the whole thing will pass into obscurity.
I agree with you the E.Shubee is not involved in this discussion in a rational way, but I think the nominator (Colin) and myself are. So far it does not appear that you have provided any substantial evidence for notability of this topic. could I please ask you to respond to my question above about the membership of CSDA and the number of CSDA churches which exist worldwide? Thank you. Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am referring to Waymarks and In His Steps, newsletters by independent Adventist groups in the United States. "I've never heard of them" appears to be the reply to that one from what I have read so far, nevertheless they are third-party resources entirely independent of the subject of this article. The "single reference" statement is not as unreasonable a casting of the situation as Mr. Shubert's continued soapboxing, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it entirely objective either. The statement that "the whole thing will pass into obscurity" is an opinion without support, since coverage on this group has been around since at least 1999... (The Clarion-Ledger article at least establishes that beyond question) and an opinion is all that is; it's also not helping my opinion that there's some rampant "dontlikitism" involved here colored with some elitism. The nominator's made a big deal about "vested interests" above, but I haven't seen any negative interest in this article except by those involved in Seventh-day Adventism - that door swings both ways. Regarding the membership and number, since unlike the mainstream SDA Church there is congregational vs. centralized government (if that word can even be used) and no creed for formal tests of fellowship (as I believe is explained in the article), the answer I can give to that here is the same as in the earlier discussion on that topic - I don't know. As far as I know, a figure is not required to establish notability. What is has been supplied. ◄Zahakiel► 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again thank you for taking the time to respond. I would appreciate it if you (or somebody else) could quote a relevant paragraph of the Waymarks and In His Steps newsletters pertaining to CSDA, as well as of the Clarion-Ledger article. That will assist in clarifying the notability of CSDA.
Yes, that it will "pass into obscurity" is my opinion, but this is an opinion strongly supported by the Wikipedia article itself. As far as we can tell, there is a single reference to the church in a 3rd party publication in 1999 (the significance of which, at this point, is unclear -- for all we know it may just be a brief passing reference -- which is why I've requested that you quote a relevant paragraph). Then it all falls silent for the next 7 years, until the WIPO proceeding and lawsuit in 2006. This is hardly long-term notability.
The article informs us that CSDA has a "congregation" (I take this to mean a single church), a pastor called Walter McGill, a website, and an "Academy". That's not very much, as far as notability is concerned. And a visit to the "Academy's" website (http://www.csda.us/school_resources.html) -- which merely consists of a bunch of advertisements which have nothing to do with CSDA -- makes one suspect that this "Academy" is somewhat non-existent. The only thing we have to really substantiate the existence of this rather phantom church are the lawsuits and WIPO ruling, which account for at least 2/3rds of the article's length. And let's be clear that a WIPO ruling and lawsuit are hardly enough to establish notability, since they only bear on the church in a very tangential way. There has to be something about the church itself to establish notability.
I am having difficulty understanding why there has been so much evasiveness regarding the question about membership. I'm not expecting you to produce an exact figure. But you do attend this church every week don't you? So can you at least tell me if the church has more than 10 members? More than 50? More than 100? And is there just one congregation? Or more than one? Does CSDA exist outside of TN? Outside of the USA? Roughly how many children attend the Academy? Less or more than 50? How many people identify as "CSDA" as their religion on the national census? Surely you can supply answers to these sorts of simple questions. You say E. Shubee is wrong in his assertion that the church just has 4 members -- fair enough -- but can you provide evidence to prove otherwise, if nothing else than to shut him up? So far, the evasiveness just strengthens the suspicion that CSDA really is a non-notable entity. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When another user was concerned about the state of the CSDA article in an earlier discussion, he expressed similar concerns and asked to see the information from the newspaper. I was happy to supply them. It deals with the TN congregation's preparations for what was thought by many to be a potential shake-up due to the Y2K problem. It is more, as you can verify by reading it, than a passing mention. As far as the two other newsletters, since I live in Florida, and not TN, I do not have immediate access to those articles. I've read them, and therefore included them during an expansion of the entry some time ago.
About "evasiveness" regarding the numbers and membership - I have explained that as clearly as I can. And no, I do not attend that congregation/church weekly, I live in another state. If you were of that impression, I suppose it might explain why you think I am being evasive or shy about providing you with numbers. I don't have a figure; I live quite a distance away, visiting once or twice a year for camp meetings, when both members and non-members meet together. If you are content with ballparks, there are probably roughly ten that attend just the TN congregation, and this is not the only one. There is also a field in Canada, and there are individuals (such as myself and my wife) living in different places - there is also a scattered member in Kentucky that I remember - that do not have "congregations" per se. There are a number overseas with whom we correspond regularly and consider themselves CSDAs, although I myself haven't gone to their countries to meet them and do a headcount of their Churches, so I can't even ballpark that. I certainly don't know about their national census data.
"Evidence" of more than four members... Yes, Mr. Shubert is wrong about that, and he has always been wrong about that. Well, there are pictures of baptisms, but since we don't register them with the government or anything, I suppose the die-harders on that "four member" stuff could say we paid people to put on robes and get wet. The speculation that "they could have dwindled to two" is pretty indicative of the level of.... well, I'll just let that speak for itself. The Academy I am less sure about; it had its classes suspended for a time when the lawsuit first started, but it was to have been re-opened some time thereafter. This is another issue that I simply don't know about - an honest, and not evasive, answer.
Notability is not the same as fame or importance; that the CSDA Church is a small group is stated in the article. That it has been noted by more than one third-party, independent source is also pointed out by the article. How important or famous that makes them, that's subject to the opinions of editors, sure, but that the guidelines describe just what resources the article supplies is enough for the presumption of notability (according to those guidelines) beyond mere subjective statements. ◄Zahakiel► 14:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church article states, "Unlike the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the CSDA constituency has voted the returning of tithes as a test of fellowship." If tithes are required to be sent to the officers of the CSDA, then I suspect that every member is an officer. --e.Shubee (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Is this church notable? This ref [[3]] and the domain dispute just tip it for me. Springnuts (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ e.g. Progressive Adventism, Spectrum (magazine), Adventist Today and many others
  2. ^ e.g. Historic Adventism, Hartland Institute, Hope International (Seventh-day Adventist), Standish brothers etc.
  3. ^ e.g. Desmond Ford, Dale Ratzlaff, Walter T. Rea, Robert Brinsmead, Good News Unlimited, D. M. Canright and many others. Others like SDA Kinship International; Sabbath-day Adventists etc. are waiting to be written
  4. ^ "Walla Walla College Criticized" in Adventist Today. "The Future of Adventism: Where's The Church Headed?" by Alden Thompson. Read about it - that is, if you can find any other mentions at all


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Creation_Seventh_Day_Adventist_Church_(second_nomination)&oldid=1140400176"