Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Christian Church (2nd 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 delete and redirect to Kip McKean#International Christian Church. I am ignoring the SPAs !votes. Nevertheless, there seems to be consensus that this should be deleted. I am leaving a redirect as this might be a possible search term. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian Church[edit]

[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)

I nominate the page for deletion, and give the following reason: No academic supporting sources to establish page need. Historically been a battle ground among former and current members using exclusively primary sources. (WP:DEL1, WP:DEL6, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14) Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I second the deletion. No scholarly articles or evidence to call the information. Chrisgreen160 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC) — Chrisgreen160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Please delete the page. This page has weak sources and it's not very informative. One of the sources seems to have been taken down or archived. Please remove it. Marleydepew (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC) — Marleydepew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This is a notable group with a founder who has his own page. I am sure reliable sources will soon turn up as they did with McKeans previous church. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JB , That's just the thing: of the 21 citations the founder has, only 4 or 5 are legitimate non-self-sourced. His former church is the same story, only 6-7 legitimate citations out of the nearly 100-self-sourced. If the ICC after 12 years was worthy of an academic page, it would have more than 1 valid citation. Until that day, deletion is the only reasonable option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachbricewilliams28 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems fairly straightforward. This topic lacks meaningful credible insight. Ronald C Harding 00:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldcharding (talk • contribs)

You guys may want to go and read WP:MEAT before continuing, as two of these editors have no other contributions outside of this topic and the other two are members of the church, as per the talk pages of the founder and his church being discussed. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jb, no one is sock puppet in here, and anyone who knows you, knows the reason why you want this page to remain. Please don't sit there and pretend like it is academic. This page has existed for half the time the church has, and there is only one academic source. Affiliation can be an issue, but not in all cases ( hence why I've never cared about your Icoc editing history.) Either someone needs to come up with some real citations, or the page has to go. Since there are no existing academic sources on this church, this isn't about sentiment, it's about the standards at Wiki. This page doesn't cut it. I just has no merit. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)×[reply]

Comment I've been involved disputes on this page before; note that this is not the somewhat-related group International Churches of Christ. The real argument for deletion seems to be that certain people affiliated with the church don't like this article. Regarding the 5 DEL criteria: DEL1 (meets CSD) doesn't seem to apply at all, and DEL14 (unsuitable for an encyclopedia) clearly isn't met as articles describing churches are appropriate content for an encyclopedia. DEL6 and DEL7 (lack of reliable sources) and DEL8 (notability) may apply; the existing sourcing suggests that a redirect to Kip McKean may be appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it's not that some don't "like" the article. It's that when the article was at it's HIGHEST QUALITY IN MAY, it was modeled after the ICOC page yet somehow, despite the presumed accuracy of the sources, wikiGnomes still rejected the page with no objection to the Icoc page's 80+ selfsourced links. Same for the Kip McKean page; it is 95% self sourced. If a pile of academic sources existed or comes about, this page could be revived. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)––[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of suspicions of meatpuppetry involved in this AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relisting is appreciated however the WP:Meat was already cleared as "unrelated" by Bbb23. The decision seems beyond obvious. I'm not certain why the delay. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something, but I see no evidence that there is no concern over meatpuppetry JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed in another page; hence why no one is pushing it.Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My BEFORE isn't turning up any independent significant coverage. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 13:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The fact that the instigator of that group "has his own page" is not an argument for keeping the article; in fact, it's completely irrelevant. If there were sources testifying to the subject's independent notability we'd have found them by now. -The Gnome (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a Redirect to Kip McKean#International Christian Church, not enough useable sources for a standalone but may be a wikireader searchterm. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion on the keep/delete spectrum, but I'm very confused by the cast of characters here. There's some obvious socking going on (for which I've opened an SPI), but beyond that, I noticed that User:Ronaldcharding stated in the comment to this edit that he was Mr. McKean's personal assistant. The WP:UPE aspect aside, I'm confused why somebody who is associated with the church is arguing for it to be deleted. That's backwards of how these spamfests usually work. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2019 (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.