Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Family of Churches (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 per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King's Family of Churches

[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)

This denomination clearly fails WP:NCHURCH, as was already noted back in 2008: no reliable secondary source discusses this denomination (if there ever was a mention it would probably simply be a WP:TRIVIALMENTION).
The previous AfD treated this denomination as a non-commercial organisation, but it is a religious organisation (WP:NCHURCH). 13 years after this AfD, the article still has no reliable source to support the notability of this organisation.
No mention of this denomination on Google books, no mention on Google Scholar, no mention in the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions. The name "Evangelical Episcopal Church" gives many results on Google books and Google Scholar which correspond to various organisations; none of those matches the one this WP article is about (Google books, Google Scholar).
I recommend deletion for serious lack of WP:notability. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable short-lived religious group. I failed to find any independent non-promotional in-depth coverage. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep -- This appears to be in the nature of a denomination. If it really had 967 congregations and 40,000 members, it was notable; and notability is not temporary. It would be helpful, if it the article had explained what happened to such a large number of congregations. The whole thing seems very odd. Congregations do not suddenly disappeear: it is more likely that the movement splintered and the others went in a different direction. However a denomination in Spain that used the (Anglican) book of common prayer sounds odd. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment below. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep -Odd, apparently it had 900 congregations, then 600, in various countries and on various continents. Existed for about 20 years, then completely dissapeared. It was a combination of Celtic and anglican or something? Its very unusual, almost like a hoax article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: now that you say it, the user who created the page had put as the image of an alleged church (congregation) of this denomination, an image which seem to be from an unrelated Lutheran church, as @Explicit: found out; see c:User talk:Explicit#Deletion of File:Localcongregation.jpg. @Peterkingiron: any thought? Veverve (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That pic was one of the main things that was convincing me this was legit! It's all rather dubious now.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (voted above) -- If true, the first two sentences of my vote above would be right.

Deeper in Christ Ministries appears to be a genuine church in Georgia (probably one congregation). Joseph Rossello apparently exists, leading a church in Exmouth, England and claims there were 1200 congregations. Free Church of England names him as bishop of their South America diocese. I thus wonder it this is not a gargled version of that. If so, it should be redirected there. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done a bit of searching here, there is definitely a group of similiar churches that are called Kings Church that seem to be connected in some way, in The UK, Australia, the US and possibly other places - so this article could refer to them - for instance, here and here and here and here - It looks to me these are all connected, as they seem to use similiar branding and seem to be all pentecostal/born again type churches, modern ministry type churches. I noticed some of them refer to a similar service called "alpha". There's little overall information on the overall concept or connection, but there's certainly lots of these "kings Church" similiar churches. So if this is the case, and this is referring to them, then this would appear to be legit. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: the fact one cannot find any secondary source centered on this denomination and has to resort on trying to find parishes with a name which sounds similar (and may simply be a reference to Christ the King) to find information, means the subject does not meet the WP:NCHURCH and WP:GNG and therefore should be deleted. All which has been found so far are riddles which are primary sources which on top of not saying anything about this denomination cannot be taken as proofs of GNG. Veverve (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand you are right, there is little secondary information here. But I would refute that these parishes just coincidentally have the same name (They are all called "Kings Church - Placename"), that would appear to be too much of a coincidence. They are also all coincidentally similiar types of evangelical churches.They would appear to be connected (at least loosely, or influenced each other), and as there seems to be a sizeable body of them, or were at some point, that would meet both WP:NCHURCH and WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: WP:GNG states its criteria are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". None of those criteria are present here. One cannot operate by instinct and clues to write a WP article or to decide on the WP:NOTABILITY of a WP article; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the place for WP:OR. A denomination does not have the right to have its WP article, or to have an unreasonably large benefit of the doubt, on the ground that it claims itself to have such and such many parishes. Veverve (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, there isn't good enough secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG alone. However you seem to be missing my point - the article (and the information here posted by Peterkingiron) claims to have many parishes, and internet searches seems to reveal that this is in fact the case. As for OR, its perfectly normal for editors to do research to ascertain if the content of an article is legitimate - that's what we do. I thought this may be a hoax article, but that doesn't appear to be the case.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: This information is from a personnal WP:BLOG written by the blog owner about his own life (and it is possibly a WP:PASSINGMENTION). This blog is not a WP:RS, even less when it has to support the claim an obscure denomination existed and had more than a thousand parishes over multiple countries without anybody noticing it. We already have primary sources in the WP article claiming the churches had hundreds of parishes, it is nothing new. Veverve (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree its a blog and not WP:RS and we wouldn't base the article on it, my point is, like Peterkingiron who pointed it out intitally I guess, it's part of the puzzle we are looking at to work out what is going on with this article. I'm not overly connected to this article, I'm mainly just curious as to what its about, and as mentioned, I suspect the "family" of various "Kings Churches" I linked to are what it is referring to. I'll also point out that this article was put up for AFD in the past and was kept, this being the 2nd nomination of course. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has anyone found verifiable evidence for the claims of significance in the article? If not, deletion appears appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable church or congregation or organization. I cannot find any independent sources that even mention King's Family of Churches. The sources in the article consist of primary refs, a ref that talks about the New Beginning Church of Benissa and doesn't support any of the content in the article, and two refs to doctrinal statements that don't mention the article subject either. Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet WP:NORG. (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 21 January 2022 (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.