Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restored Church of God

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 keep. Michig (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Church of God[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)

Does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:ORGDEPTH. Of the secondary sourcing provided, the only true coverage is of the decision to build, and completion of, their headquarters building, with some PR filler behind. This in and of itself is only covered by local media (within the city of location and an outlet of the larger city [Akron, OH] media 15 miles away) so what is there seems quite regional, and is based on the one event of the facility construction. A search finds little to nothing else to suggest broader notability. Roberticus talk 20:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the claim of having 50 congregations is probably enough to meet notability guidelines for church sects; the references I find are largely primary sources (either by the church or by its opponents). There's no article on David C. Pack to redirect to, a merge to an article on Armstrongite church spin-offs might be reasonable but would involve a significant amount of work. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this claims congregations meeting weekly in 65 countries. That ought to be enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! However, I'd like to point out that the external link you refer to is the webpage of the subject , and as a self-published source is neither independent nor particularly verifiable or trustworthy. So essentially it's just an assertion which I'd argue does little or nothing to really demonstrate notability, which needs be established by reliable sources... Roberticus talk 20:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major church with congregations in 65 countries, there should be offline sources if not online Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! However, I'd like to point out that you are relying on an unreliable self-published source as noted above. Also, your assumption that good offline sources exist amounts to WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, which I'd argue is pretty dubious, since the subject was only founded in 1999, and as has already been noted this church has a significant web presence... Roberticus talk 20:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow an opportunity for offline sources, or other independent sources, to be posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Even if 65 countries is excessive (and I accept that it is from a self-published source), this splinter of Armstrong's church is still likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Not to be argumentative Peter, but that seems to be a pretty subjective statement with no real supporting basis besides the subject's own claims on their own media... nevertheless, this debate hasn't seemed to catch much further traction. I'm generally an inclusionist myself and try to find opportunities to !vote at AfD where something ought truly be kept, so I respect your stance. I only ever feel moved to propose a deletion where there's no real basis besides the subject's self-serving claims to importance. I think readers get a sense of this where an article subject has so little supporting it in reliable or secondary sources, they realize the article was essentially a covert advertisement, which leaves them feeling they can't trust such a ubiquitous & invaluable living reference which I believe Wikipedia is, and which touts itself as being ad-free as one of its distinctives... Roberticus talk 17:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fairness, took a quick shot at sourcing some references found in major media, not too substantial but they are mentions.... Roberticus talk 17:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason I have just this minute logged onto Wikipedia was to read about David C. Pack. If I am redirected to Restored Church of God then Wikipedia is doing its job. If I am shown a red link then Wikipedia is failing me. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2018 (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.