Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Living Word Fellowship (4th nomination)

:{{la|The Living Word Fellowship}} ([{{fullurl:The Living Word Fellowship|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Living Word Fellowship (4th nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

fails wp:n. this is only mentioned in two reliable secondary sources. a section in the appendix of a book about cults, and a mention in a people magazine article (of which the church is not the subject). one reason this article could exist would be if the sources indicated that "The scope of activities are national or international in scale" per wp:org, but they don't. the cult book describes this as a "relatively small" movement and says that at it's peak in the 1970s it only had 100 churches. i would hardly describe this as "national" in a nation with something like 300,000 churches. the last afd had lots of keep voters who didn't refer to policy and seemed to ignore the reasons given by the afd nominator. i would take this to drv as i dispute the closing decision but the closer gave no explanation of why he closed it as keep so i'm not really sure how to go about disputing it. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:* Query: Did you ask the previous closer, User:King of Hearts for an explanation of his closing decision? That's the appropriate starting place if your intent is to challenge the previous AfD. Initiating a fourth AfD in three months seems inappropriate. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

::: oh sorry, i didn't think to do that. i will notify him of this afd so that he can give an explanation here. sorry about that. Jessi1989 (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, for essentially the same reasons I gave in the previous AfDs. Nothing has changed since those earlier AfDs. The nominator seems to have the mistaken perception that notability is based solely on the here and now. Notability is not temporary, and historical topics are within the scope of the encyclopedia. I don't want to argue about the LWF's current membership numbers and geographic scope, although both seem to be larger than the nominator contends. Regardless of what its membership numbers and geographic coverage are now, this organization is notable for the attention that it has received in the past, including (1) coverage in published books about new religious movements and (2) being a major subject of a documentary film by Yoko Ono's estranged first husband. --Orlady (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:: sorry, i'm not only saying that it's not notable now, i'm saying that it was never notable. the figures i have given are straight out of the source so i don't think i am contending anything. i think you are misrepresenting the facts here a little. (1) it was only covered in the appendix of one published book and (2) as this film isn't even notable enough to have an article i don't see how this is evidence of notability for a church mentioned in it. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:::That one published book is not necessarily the only publication that exists regarding this church. It just happens to be a book that was accessible online. Coverage in the appendix of that book was fairly extensive, and the book cited other published sources that no one here has yet gone to the trouble to find and cite. Focused coverage in a published book is a pretty solid indicator of notability. As for the film, coverage of the LWF in a widely-released documentary film is a further indication of the notability of the LWF. The fact that the film does not yet have its own article (however, the filmmaker does) does not have relevance to the question of whether the film provides third-party coverage of the topic that helps to indicate notability (anyway, see WP:OTHERSTUFF). --Orlady (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

::::what other published sources does the book cite? i am aware of wp:OTHERSTUFF but my point was the the film is not notable, and therefore it is not evidence of notability for this church. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::The fact that the film does not yet have an article does not mean that the film is not notable; it may simply mean that no one has written the article yet. Any film released in 1985 (from your user ID, I'm guessing that's before you were born) is far less likely to have a Wikipedia article than a film released in 2008, but that does not mean that the films of 2008 are more notable than the films of 1985. Regardless, you will not find support for your theory that, in order to be notable, a topic must have been covered in multiple independent published sources that are themselves notable topics. --Orlady (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- Subject looks like its been covered in multiple independent sources that would be considered reliable by wiki standards. AFAIK, that makes it notable. I see no real reason to delete.Umbralcorax (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Satisfies the notability requirements of WP:CORP, which says: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." The People magazine article and Ruth Tucker book cited satisfy this requirement. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:: For clarity, note the statement I just cited applies specifically to non-commercial organizations like religious movements, not to organizations in general. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep--Consensus in the last two AfD was clear: subject is notable. Nothing has changed since then. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• comment there seems to be some misunderstanding here. this church was not "covered in multiple independent sources" as the keep voters above are suggesting. a mention in an appendix does not count as coverage. neither does a mention in an magazine article. this church was the subject of neither the book or the article. two mentions does not count as coverage in multiple independent sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• These were not mere "mentions". The LWF is the topic of 3 pages of text in the book, with several footnoted citations. The People magazine article is a real article (not just a short blurb) about what Anthony Cox and his daughter did for the 14 years after they "disappeared," and his involvement with the LWF is a significant part of the story of what he did. Finally, the LWF is the main focus of the documentary film (which is not actually cited as a source in the article -- I don't know if any of us has seen it, but is described in multiple other independent sources that are cited). --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the subject of the article is clearly notable, both in the more important sense of having multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage available and in the less important sense of meeting some of the proxy conditions such as scope of activity. (The group itself lists churches in 3 countries as of today, and the sources say that it is smaller (or from the group's spin, more centralized) now than it used to be.) In addition to the sources cited in the article, the original published version of [http://www.intotruth.org/res/lastdl2.html this] would count as a reliable independent source with some content about the group. Contrary to Jessi's misunderstanding, it is not necessary that the group be the subject of an entire work, just that the work offer significant coverage (more than just statistics or a one line sentence), and the sources certainly do meet our standards. GRBerry 18:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• SNOW keep: Nothing has changed n the last few weeks. As I commented in the last AfD - lots of agendas here, but the article has WP:RS for notability and should be kept. Springnuts (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Procedural keep on the grounds that the initial nomination and the immediate followup comments suggests incorrect process might have been followed with this renomination (with clear good faith intent, er, no pun intended)plus the fact it's been only 3 months since the last one, though that's border line if the nominator has a concern over the closure. No comment on the merits of the article itself; no prejudice to renomination if proper process calls for it. 23skidoo (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per everyone but nominator. Several independant sources, clearly notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.