Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Church

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. Arguments for keeping have been refuted in that, while this is sourced, it is essentially a redundant content fork. Shereth 21:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament church[edit]

Article cites no external sources indicating the phrase or subject is specifically notable, but is seemingly just a collection of possibly cherry-picked quotations/citations from the New Testament, possibly for didactic purposes. Creator of the page is being notified of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —John Carter (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, original synthesis-- which is great for Sunday sermons, but not for an encyclopedia article. Mandsford (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced for over a year and the concept is better covered at Early Christianity#Organization. Probably redirect after deleting. GRBerry 01:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Oodles and oodles of sources exist on this topic. Including a book from 1912. And one from 1908. Here's an article from the Sacremento Bee(pay only) referencing it. And one from The Lexington Herald Leader(also pay-only). A quick Google search confirms the notability of the term. It should be noted, however, that "New Testament church" is the proper name for the term, and is not to be confused with the various "New Testament Church" organizations. While I'm 100% certain this term is notable, I will admit that the article needs a bit of work towards clarity and POV. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs cleanup, as it has plenty of sources that establish notability. SashaNein (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the events that happened in the christian church in the New Testament are notable it is already covered in the articles on early christian history. Even if the article was improved it would be redundant.Ltwin (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Technically, the New Testament(NT) church would include the whole of every Christian person within the scope of the NT. And since the NT is a prophetic book documenting alleged future events, every Christian person alive today is part of the NT church. But the bigger point is, "NT church" is a broad topic covering a set beliefs, periods of history, and a set of followers. Many, many books, essays, sermons, and articles have been written about the topic; doesn't it at least deserve a full article? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree with your perspective that this is a valid subject for an article. However, the material there now is not useful for a future article on this subject and our readers of today would be better served by the redirect I suggested above. Should you put in enough rewriting effort to change that, my opinion would change. Heck, tag the redirect {{r with possibilities}}, it would be one. GRBerry 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had been playing with the idea of rewriting it myself. It's a broad subject, though, and, in all honesty, I don't know if my writing skills are up to par. I'm also worried about absentmindedly introducing a bit of a POV and factual errors. None-the-less, if no other editor tackles the job by tomorrow, I will give it my best shot. (Providing they don't call me to work.) As a matter of courtesy, I ask that the editor who decides to tackle the job use the {{inuse}} or {{under construction}} templates. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 04:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment comes off as possibly notable but this seems false since it seems to be already covered in the article New Testament itself. The idea seems like it has potential but the article is horrible and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs)
Delete A special quotation farm of this sort is really only a subject fork, and fully covered elsewhere. If we should need a more specialized article, this is not even a useful start. DGG (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have re-written the article. It's only a stub, as of right now (because I worked all day and am tired), but it would be easy to expand. If I'm off tomorrow, I may begin expanding it. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Various denominations have sought to go back to a primitive form of Christian worship, for example Plymouth Brethren and various Pentecostal denominations, not just the New Testament Church of God, which is one among many. Many of the ancient churches would no doubt claim the same of their liturgy, though I suspect that its origin is in many cases lost in the mists of time. An article on the worship of the early church (and the differing view on it) might well be useful, but I do not think this is it. If some one is prepared to work on this, I would allow the article to stand and see what emerges, but at the moment this is not an article that we should keep permanently. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be differing opinions on the subject of the article. Very interesting. I only referenced New Testament Church of God as an example of a congregation that actually included "New Testament Church" in the title. I'm sure many of the "mainstream" US denominations (Baptist, Pentecostal, Holiness, etc.) consider themselves a New Testament church. I mainly only included a dicdef of the term, so expanding would be simpler later on. In encourage anyone to add anything they think may be helpful to the article. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 22:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment further -- I hope that the view is emerging that this article should be rescued. I suspect that a number of us may have different POVs, based on different denominational backgrounds as to what characterised a New Testament Church. The fact that any one person may be expressing a POV should not be a concern as other editors can identify it as such. What I am clear of however is that no single denomination can assert that it (uniquely) has recovered the NT pattern. However, this article is rightly tagged for REscue. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (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.