Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apostolic Johannite 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. No independent RS document the assertions herein, despite the time and fervency of those arguing that it should be kept. I will provide a copy for userification and help coach someone who wants to make this meet Wikipedia standards, assuming that it's possible to do so. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Johannite Church

Apostolic Johannite Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

After some research, I have been able to find no indication that this church is notable. This includes an inability to find sources in specialist religious periodicals, including those that tend to cover NRMs and fringe religious groups. As the article asserts notability, CSD is not an option and thus I am raising it for discussion. Vassyana (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete The Apostolic Johannite Church appears to be the largest, most active international Gnostic Church, and one of the most prominent, authentic, public voices on modern gnosticism today. How is that not notable? Jikaku (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ecclesia Gnostica and L'Eglise Gnostique are the largest Gnostic churches. Taken in combination with those particular churches in communion with them and the Thelemic churches, all others comprise only a very modest minority of Gnostic membership. Essentially, Wikipedia finds something notable when outside reputable sources have taken substantive note of the topic. Without substantial coverage in good references, we cannot fulfill out basic content policies. For the Apostolic Johannite Church, even venues that give a lot of attention to new religious movements, Gnosticism and other minority religious topics do not show any coverage of the church. Vassyana (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any sources to back that up? I could buy the Ecclesia Gnostica, since it's tied in with the OTO, but "L'Eglise Gnostique"? Which of the many tiny churches using that name are you referring to? And even if you counted all of them together, I still think you fall short of the international membership of the AJC. Exactly how many books need to mention the AJC, or be written by its members, for notability?Jikaku (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for my bluntness, but it is obvious that you are not familiar with modern Gnosticism as a broader topic. The Ecclesia Gnostica is a prominent "English Gnostic" church, best known for Bishop Hoeller's work and gnosis.org. L'Eglise Gnostique (de France), or the Eglise Gnostique Catholique Apostolique, is the most prominent and oldest "French Gnostic" church. Both are in full communion with each other. Both are quite distinct from the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, which is the church arm of the OTO. Regarding reliable sources, there is no set number, but member written books would not fulfill the requirement for independent sources. As a general rule, a few independent reputable sources will usually suffice for the purposes of deletion discussions. Vassyana (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that the Ecclesia Gnostica and L'Eglise Gnostique are the largest Gnostic churches is factually untrue. The EG *may* have more active members (uncertain) but it has fewer active parishes. L'Eglise Gnostique has only a very limited existence, and is considerably smaller than the AJC by any measure: active parishes, active clergy, active members, budget, etc. Wbehun (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)— Wbehun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do Not Delete The Apostolic Johannite Church is notable indeed as are the published books and liturgical works of several of its leaders. Our Interfaith churches in Florida and Texas and elsewhere are not associated with AJC in any way, nor are we Gnostic, but we do indeed draw upon the scholarship, works and considerable liturgical activity of AJC. This church is a notable force in modern gnosticism, both in N. America and internationally. Seems odd to want to want to ignore or minimize its existence. Perhaps a bit of anti-church bias is at work? KatiaRoma (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Despite a seeming lack of sources (I know they're out there, I've seen several instance of coverage in the past), this is one of a very small number of Neo-gnostic churches in a movement that has gotten increasing attention in recent years. I'm also confused as to why Hoeller's work is 'notable,' but the work of AJC members is not? Infinitysnake (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar enough with the modern Gnostic movement to know that the "L'Eglise Gnostique" is a handfull of people of questionable status with absolutley nothing notable about them - ecclesiastically or otherwise, whereas the AJC appears to be active throughout north america, parts of europe, is mentioned in several books, whose priests have authored numerous books on modern gnosticism, is a founding member of the North American College of Gnostic Bishops, whose annual conclaves draw speakers and participants from both the gnostic field as well as academia... what more do you want? It seems as though you have some sort of sectarian bias against them - I'd be much more comfortable moving forward with broader editorial participation in this discussion. Jikaku (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than dispute which church is prominent or so forth, let's focus on the crux of the matter. I have not been able to find substantive coverage of the AJC in reliable sources. If you are aware of reputable references that discuss the church, please share them. --Vassyana (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted in the discussion page on the article in question, the church is relatively new and as such has not been the subject of any extended scholarly discussion yet, nor has it been involved in scandals that would bring it to the notice of mainstream media. However, given its widespread and growing presence, certainly significantly greater than that of L'Eglise Gnostique in the USA (which at this point has, to my knowledge, two operating parishes at most,) the AJC clearly merits inclusion in Wikipedia. The claims by Vassyana indicate nothing more than a bias toward other churches and a desire to tear down others in order to build up those churches to which s/he is predisposed. At the end of the day, this has already been hashed out on the discussion page some time ago.Wbehun (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unable to locate any independent or reliable sources. Nothing reliable and independent in Google Web, nothing at all in Google News, nothing at all in Google Scholar, and only junk in Google Books - specifically two self-published Lulu.com books with no substantive content on the church (though if one was reliable it would be strong evidence that the church is not Christian), one computer generated Icon Group International "book" that can't evidence notability, and one Adventures Unlimited Press book (that may also be self-published) with no meaningful content on the church. In the absence of independent and reliable sources, we can't sustain an article on the church that adheres to the article content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V). Therefore, delete. In addition, I used to live in the specific town where one of these group's meets - due to my interests I'd have noticed it if it was at all visible in the physical world - but it wasn't visible. GRBerry 14:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Guardians of the Holy Grail" by Mark Pinkham (the "Adventures Unlimited Press book" GRBerry mentions) has an interview with the AJC's founder James Foster that goes for five pages or so starting at page 303 specifically about the church. The beginning of the interview is not visible in the Google Books preview I can see, but Foster is referred to as "Primate" in the visible bits of the interview. I don't think many current members of the church would agree with every detail of the interview, but the fact that there's an interview about the church and its history speaks pretty firmly to Notability in the WP:ORG sense. This premise of this proposal to delete is Notability, not WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:V. The question is whether this organisation should be represented by a distinct page in Wikipedia, not what the exact content of the page should be. There are measures other than deletion to handle content issues. -- Timbomb (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: The AJC maintains 9 parishes around the world, providing outreach, pastoral care, palliative counselling, interfaith dialogue, advocacy for the homeless and mentally ill, and religious education. By running a seminary it assists in the formation of the next generation of Gn clergy. By having strong relations with other long-standing and significant Gn churches such as the Ecclesia Gnostica Mysteriorum (30+ years), the Gnostic Church of Mary Magdalene, and the Alexandrian Gnostic Church, it contributes to collaborative projects such as the Order of Saint Esclarmonde (an AJC/GCMM sponsored lay order).
Speaking in my capacity as AJC clergy, I was cited in US News & World Report, and my book (published by Apocryphile in Berkeley and hardly a vanity press) discusses the mission of Apostolic Johannite Church and has been reviewed in PanGaia magazine and The Pomegranate (a journal of Pagan Studies). This is merely an example of how the AJC is making a noteworthy contribution to the Independent Sacramental Movement as a whole and contemporary Gnosticism in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanstratford (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC) — Jordanstratford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If you are aware of substantive coverage of the AJC in independent reliable sources, please share those references. The sources you refer to do not seem to do so. (For example, The US News and World Report makes absolutely no mention of the AJC, in addition to describing you simply as "a Gnostic priest who heads a small congregation in Victoria, British Columbia".) --Vassyana (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: I support the Wikipedia principle of Notability and I think it's important to police it. The problem in this particular case is of a church which seems fairly active, but does not seem to have generated media or scholarly interest in proportion to its activity. I've edited the AJC page to include explicit references to the parishes. Consulting those parish sites makes it obvious that most of them clearly hold regular public services and talks, so I think it's fair to say that in their local communities they are not "Under the radar". I've also included all the books I could find (including those GRBerry thinks are not reputable) that make reference to the church and some material on Father Stratford, his book and a few mentions in the media. I've also tried to add some of the inter-church links where relevant to the text of the article.
On the basis that the church is young, but growing fairly rapidly, that it seems to have visible evidence of the viable, active local communities (so it's not yet another internet church) and that it has generated some (though admittedly limited) secondary interest in both media and books, I think it should not be deleted. Over the next couple of years the secondary sources will either multiply or not depending on the actual notability of the organisation - the evidence can easily be investigated again.
Full disclosure: I am a priest in the AJC and an occasional Wikipedian. Timbomb (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not act on whether or not sources will become available, but whether they are available. Additionaly, none of the sources added are independent reliable references that provide substantive coverage of the AJC. --Vassyana (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gibbs and Pinkham books are independent. You could argue about reliability. I realize that no-one has yet produced an ideal gold-standard secondary source about the AJC. I'm leaning on the criteria that multiple less reliable sources can also indicate notability. Timbomb (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following is written by Hexalpa:Hexalpa (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC) ***Do Not Delete***' The AJC, while small in comparison with Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic branches of Christian tradition, is one of only a handful of Gnostic Churches sharing in the "catholic" sacramental tradition, and posessed of a lineage of apostolic succession tracing back to the time of Christ. It a well-known denomination within the modern sacramental Gnostic movement, and certainly one of the fastest growing.[reply]
  • Do Not Delete 21 March 2009 - Kenosis_AO - One of the few independent Sacramental Churches that has a standardized distance seminarian training program, holds regular services and attends the poor. The Clergy all hold regular jobs - many have post-Secondary degrees from accredited sources - but do not have time on top of their reg jobs, Church work, and social work to write academic articles. The standard that you are holding this church to is that established by the mainstream churches for their own aggrandizement. Of course, the early Christian Church didn't have a lot of published articles in accredited Jewish journals of the 1st & 2nd centuries either... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.50.86 (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC) — 70.73.50.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Jordan Stratford calls shenanigans. Pete here obviously has a bias ("L'Eglise Gnostique are the largest Gnostic churches" - a completely and demonstrably false assertion) and therefore we need an impartial editor to assist in this discussion – someone without an axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.155.157 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:ORG. ThemFromSpace 21:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    care to share your reasoning, themfromspace?Wbehun (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Johannite Church which seems to be the parent of this church and whose article could use an infusion of material. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a good suggestion, but would be somewhat misleading, because while the AJC does continue the work of Fabre-Palaprat's church, it is not the sole inheritor of that tradition, and operates in a very different manner. Wbehun (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Fabre-Palaprat's church had been non-existant, as such, for over a century. Since then, it has merged with various Gnostic churches (most notably Doinel's Eglise Gnostique de France) and experienced schisms. Its successor churches have also experienced numerous merges and schisms. The AJC is no more Fabre-Palaprat's church than the Lutheran church is a Roman Catholic church. --Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but the mere addition of the heading "Successor Churches" seems like it would overcome that objection. Timbomb (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the claim that Fabre-Palaprat's church was merged into the Eglise Gnostique de France was merely a claim made by that church, and is far from an undebatable fact. No representative of the Fabre-Palaprat church accepted the claim that they had been "merged." If the Roman Catholic Church now claims that the Church of England has been "merged" into it, does that make it so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.55.238 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independent of whether the article fulfils the criteria for notability, if it were in its current form after the edits of the last two days, I doubt it would have attracted any attention as a candidate for deletion. Why not take a simpler route and simply tag it for { { importance } } or { { notability } }. In it's original state, this seems to me to have been a logical first response rather than hurrying to deletion. Timbomb (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jordan Stratford seems to fulfil notability criteria as a person (written a book via a reputable publisher, interviewed as an expert in his field several times, quoted in a college religion course). A portion of Father Stratford's reputation derives from being a priest in the AJC. To stick to the letter of the rules, the solution seems to be to make a page for Jordan Stratford and then put the existing AJC material on that... but that seems kind of silly, since a lot of other people are involved in the church. Timbomb (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I would argue relativism: "...Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia...." I think you've lost the forrest through the trees Vassyana. This church is notable not only because of its relative size, but because of the uniqueness of its practices. Wikipedia users should be able to find information they require now, not three hundred years from now, when there are enough scholarly articles written about a topic. Of course there aren't enough scholarly articles written about this church at this time, you can't expect to find as many when compared to other mainstream religions given the individualistic nature of gnosticism. It's true that gnostic churches tend to fly under the radar and avoid media attention; the fact that you can find ANYTHING written at all about the AJC makes this church a notable one amongst the gnostic churches. Try finding anything published about contemporary catharism and you'll get my point (as they are also a large group currently flying under the radar of both media and scholars), plenty of scholarly documents about the cathars of 700 years ago though, but that's not the information that I would be looking for. Cristina ma (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • definiteley delete Not a single reliable source, and no verifiability? Ergo, no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the number of reliable sources that have been cited (e.g. US News and World Report, PanGaia, The Pomegranate, and books by non-affiliated authors.) Wbehun (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that's a false claim. The US news articles do not contain the words "Apostolic Johannite Church." All of the rest of the sources are blogs or selfpublished or don't mention the "Apostolic johannite church" beyond in passing (for instance the haverford course syllabus for religion 222a mentions that an expert on gnosticism runs this church, but has no content about it (and in fact, is quoting the expert on gnosticism from his own self-published source).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't a false claim. The claim that the rest of the sources are self-published is patently false, however. The reason Father Stratford is considered an authority is not merely on the basis of his excellent work (not self-published) but also on his position within the Church. It's a bit like saying that a reference to a prominent Catholic theologian doesn't constitute notoriety for the Catholic Church. Wbehun (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG, WP:RS. The "do not delete" sockpuppets should be aware that such a strategy never works and indeed tends to backfire, causing previously sympathetic or neutral voters to be disinclined to save an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen any sockpuppeting here: please check the IPs before making unfounded accusations Wbehun (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, busted! (note: please imagine the "game lost" sound from The Price is Right accompanying this comment. Thank you.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, inviting people to join a conversation isn't sockpuppeting, Andrew. Sockpuppeting is when a single person uses several accounts to give the appearance of multiple voices. In fact, this suggests that the many voices in support of the article are in fact different people who have joined the conversation as a result of that invitation. Guess you're the one who's busted. Wbehun (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TEAMWORK is part of the sockpuppetry policy. --Vassyana (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vassyana, the very policy you mention starts with this: "A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." This clearly has not happened. If you have evidence that any of the voices in this discussion are fraudulent or deceptive, please present it. Wbehun (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem, that said, Vassayana, I see that the policy does cover the blog exhortation to participate. slap on Jordan's wrist for that one. Wbehun (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With so many people arguing "do not delete" I would have thought that at least one of them would have come up with an independent reliable source, but that hasn't happened, whether to support this as an article or as a redirect to any other article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil, GRBerry's analysis specifically does not include those sources that I have mentioned above as independent and reliable. If you do a quick comparison, you'll see that GRBerry's analysis does not include the following: a) The US News & World report mention b) the texts published by independent presses (e.g. Apocryphile) or c) the independent magazine mentions (e.g. PanGaia.) Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away I'm afraid. Wbehun (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that evidence would be: a) The US News & World report that doesn't even mention this church [1], b) texts from a publisher that specialises in "apocryphilia" and publishes about four print-on-demand books a year [2], and c) A supposed mention in a web magazine from this outfit. Some reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So according to some, USN&WR is not independent and reliable. An established and respected theological press (Apocryphile) is not independent and reliable. PanGaia magazine is not independent and reliable. This sets an impossibly high bar for *any* NRM to be noteworthy if the work done by individuals in the name of the organization is to be consistently excluded. The question is, how useful does Wikipedia want to be in researching contemporary Gnosticism or New Religious Movements altogether? Seeing as every available survey of contemporary Gn includes reference to the AJC, who is served by its omission here? There's an active dialogue going on in the 9 official bodies of the AJC, in many more informal groups discussing AJC materials and theology and praxis. Gnosticism in general is generating a lot of published work and scholarly debate. Does Wikipedia wish to be a relevant resource in this legitimate arena of research? In which case, the article should stand and be expanded. If not, it needs to begin deleting a host of less active, less populated and less vocal organizations within modern Gnosticism and the Independent Sacramental Movement. What's it going to be? - Jordan Stratford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.155.157 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I submit that Jordan's summation above cuts to the heart of the matter. The spirit of the notoriety policy which we all as wikipedians endorse is ensure that wikipedia is a useful and reliable resource for those seeking information. What qualifies as notoriety within the small sphere of modern Gnosticism and the Independent Sacramental Movement is different from what would qualify as notoriety for, say, a scientific breakthrough, an historical event, or the entertainment world. I think it behooves us as a community therefore to retain the article and continue to expand it. I would also mention that the controversy and strong feelings that this discussion has engendered is in itself a statement of the importance of this article. I think I've said all I need to say, so in leaving this to the editorial staff I say thank you especially to Vassayana and to Juliancolton for their input. Wbehun (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (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.