Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Ignoring the potential copyright issues, and also ignoring the article's authors' and defenders' involvement with the organization, it is plain to see that the article's contents fail to establish the movement's notability aside from the involvement of certain notable individuals. This discussion also fails in this respect - notability and worthiness of an article based on our inclusion guidlines have not been established. While the existance of the organization is verifiable, some of the lofty claims made here are not. If the organization were to verifiably become truly notable like so many of the religions, groups, cults, movements, philosophies, and ways of life listed on Wikipedia, then inclusion would be a given. However, at this stage in the movement's existance, this is not the case. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, although the article has been deleted by another admin on copyright grounds, the above decision stands for the recreation of a legal article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portland Movement

Nonnotable church congregation; also, article largely reads like a sermon. NawlinWiki 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete this un-encyclopedic entry. Wryspy 03:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Nuances that lend the article to sound like a sermon will be removed. However, the content is verifiable and legitimate concerning the Portland Movement. The content of the Portland Movement is encyclopedic and significant particularly when observed in conjunction with the former International Churches of Christ (ICOC).CdHess 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Sermon sounding" phrases were removed. If there are any other please let me know. It is in my best intention to make this article as encyclopedic as possible.CdHess 00:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There are extensive articles on Wikipedia regarding the International Churches of Christ (ICOC), and a recent addition of the biography of the individual (Kip McKean) who started the Boston Movement (which was renamed the ICOC in 1994). If these entries are considered encyclopedic, then Portland Movement content has it's place in this Wikipedia - the affiliation with McKean as well as the ICOC are factors which make the Portland International Church of Christ a notable congregation in the context of Wikipedia. Please assist by pointing out examples of "sermon-like" content in the article, they should be discussed, and then edited or removed appropriately. In the very least, this content has its place as a section in the Kip McKean bio or perhaps somewhere in the ICOC content. Jeremy Ciaramella 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Ciaramella, it's only fair to point out that you are self-described as a "cybervangelist" for Mr. McKean in your profile. As to pointing out examples of "sermon-like" content, here's a sentence I plucked out almost at random: "Beginning with just nine disciples, God has increased the Latin Ministry to almost 70 disciples as of 2006." --Pleather 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Mr. "Plether", my affiliation does not change the aforementioned contextual facts. How do you recommend rewording the above quote, "Beginning with nine members, the Latin ministry grew to 70 members as of 2006?" Removing references of God's influence on the phenomenon of church growth, or references that are similar ("x" happened because of God) is feasible, albeit awkward given the religious subject matter of this article. This fact (the growth of a ministry) is related, as it illustrates the momentum that the Portland Church is creating, much like the Boston Church created during the formation of the Boston Movement (now the ICOC). Jeremy Ciaramella 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd thank you not to assume my gender, if you please. And yes, I do happen to believe that statements of divine causality have no place in an encyclopedia. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make that clear. --Pleather 22:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Pleather -- Please observe pillar four of the Wikipedia:Five Pillars. I do not think that it was Jeremy Ciaramella's intent to offend you. This forum exists to facilitate a civil discussion as to whether or not this article should be kept.CdHess 00:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm hardly offended! Just pointing out an unnecessary assumption. As to pillar four: I'm puzzled. How, exactly, does the use of "thank you" and "if you please" constitute incivility? Pleather 01:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As my mother always said, "its not what you say, its how you say it."CdHess 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would strongly caution you to not infer tone, i.e., "how you say it," from the statements of your fellow Wikipedians. You might want to keep in mind another key tenet of contributing here, which is Assume good faith. Now, could we please get back to the topic at hand? Pleather 01:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Pleather - I am sorry I assumed your gender. It's easier to communicate in a civil fashion with someone using their given name. I'd prefer "Jeremy." I do not disagree with you about the causality statements. I would rather see this content reworked and refined and made useful than deleted. There are cross-content relationships between the Portland Movement, Kip McKean, and the ICOC. Our goal is to present all the pieces accurately - including this one. Jeremy Ciaramella 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't see why you would delete this. The ICOC became, at one time, the fastest growing religious movement in the world. That is a notable accomplishment. Kip McKean led this movement, and it began by breaking away from the traditional Churches of Christ. This is not a non-notable church, simply because it is the church in which Mr. McKean has again broken away from the 'organized' church - except this time he created the church from which he is breaking away. His prior break had great impact on the Churches of Christ and the world. This break may have similar results, and a thread should be maintained so this can be documented. Other persons notable for breaks with traditon: Martin Luther (using the above criteria, should we not delete the entry on Lutheran Church?), Jonh Wesley, John Calvin, William Tyndale - the list goes on. Kip McKean is a modern reformist - and the Portland Chrurch is certainly noteworthy enough to stay listed in Wikipedia. If you remove this article based on this complaint, you must then remove all protestant reformers and their resulting denominations on the same grounds.Scooterjonz 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Scooterjonz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Article regarding the Portland Church of Christ. The Portland Church remains one of the fastest growing church's of Christ in the country. For all practical purposes the church attendance as of Jan. 2004 was 120 people with 1 baptized teen and 2 campus students. In two years time the church has multiplied three times its size to 360. They have grown the campus ministry to well over 55 people on 11 campus in the Portland area. They also have now built up a zealous teen/middleschool ministry with well over 45 people. All of this growth has been accomplished while simultaneously sending out and supporting numerous church plantings. For 2006 the church is on a pace to baptize over 100 people. There are many churches of Christ with larger numbers of members yet, unfortunately, are not as dynamic (dynamic meaning in a state of change and growth). Static churches remain the same for a period of time and than wither away. The Portland Church of Christ believes in praying for those churches and answering any call for help that might come. The church also believes in making positive changes for their community, state, country and world. These facts are true and verifiable. While any church such as Baptist, Catholic, and Methodist have their critics - not unlike the Portland Church of Christ - it behooves the Wickipedia researcher to have fair and accurate information available so that an intelligent and logical person can make a fair judgement. Laurenchristine 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Laurenchristine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Comment Two comments above me were posted by new accounts whose only edits are in this AfD. That being said, there doesn't seem to be any third party reliable sources that show the movement meets the notability requirements in WP:ORG. Can those of you who want to keep the article show some writings from reliable third-party sources that verify the importance of the subject? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. First of all, this was speedy-deleted yesterday as copyvio (it's a cut-and-paste from a church website), then reposted today. Secondly, the text hardly bears out evidence of a so-called "movement". There are vague references to "discipling relationships" in areas outside of Portland, but the only clear claim of organizational momentum is the growth of the Portland International Church of Christ from "approximately 275 disciples" ( i.e. congregation members) in 1996 to "Over 500 in attendance on Sundays" today. Those are the only hard numbers asserting notability, so far as I can tell.
Thirdly, for a mass movement with "the dream of evangelizing the entire world in a single generation," this one appears to have attracted almost no mention in the media. I get a grand total of 34 Google hits for "Portland Movement" in conjunction with "Kip McKean", its purported leader, of which ten are derived from Wikipedia. With all due respect, while this may well at some point become a notable mass reform trend, it isn't now. --Pleather 22:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who reposted the article. The article was probably mistakenly thought of as a "copyvio." This article is not a CSD A8 "copyvio" however. Most of the article is original. I also was not notified by the editor concerning the copyvio as stated in the WP:CSD. Some quotes and ideas were taken from some Portland Bulletin articles merely to better justify and back the ideas in this article. If this article is on another website please list the website's url as I do not belive this is possible since I have been in possesion of the writing until it's posting. As far as the "global movement," there is a clear listing of congregations around the world and the US that are affiliated with the Portland Movement. I can put a listing of affiliated congregations if this helps clear things up. With all that said, the Portland Movement is in it's infancy and therefore not as clear as say the former ICOC. This article still meets the criteria in WP:ORG.CdHess 00:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you show us something from a independent, third-party source that verifies this really is a international movement, then? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No use of independent reliable sources to support anything in the article, including none to support the at best dubious claims to notability. Local churches are almost never notable, denominations are usually notable. This is an article about a church. Contrast Pillar of Fire Church, which was determined to be a notable denomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pillar of Fire Church, as it runs radio stations in three states, schools in at least four, colleges in at least two, ... GRBerry 01:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete The Portland Church currently is actively overseeing congregations in 8 different nations (Estonia, Northern Ireland, Canada, Sweden, Australia, Chile, Ukraine and the United States of America) as well as in seven states (Utah, Arizona, New York, Illinois, Georgia, Hawaii, and Oregon) demonstrating notable international status - as a religious movement. Is referring to these groups' websites considered proof of being notable - or is that considered an internal source? The Portland Church's initial activity and the Boston Church's initial activity are similar. The Portland Movement is also referred to as "Kip McKean's New Movement" (c.f. Boston Movement addtional links). Because this movement is young, there is not a large amount of press coverage - yet. Removing it from the Wikipedia while including Kip McKean and the ICOC is inconsistent. Jeremy Ciaramella 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's precisely my point, Jeremy. This movement is young. As far as I can tell, the ICOC has broken into a number of schismatic groups, and this is one of them. Kip McKean's notability, such as it is, arise from his earlier involvement in the ICOC, not in this organization. I've never heard of any of these guys before, but this much is clear.--Pleather 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response There are many articles on Wikipedia that cover things which many people have never heard of. Individuals will consider some of them unnoteworthy in their own ethos. Just because we have not heard of this thing does not quantify a reason for removing it. The Portland Movement is a part of the ethos of Kip McKean and the ICOC and the Wikipedia articles therein will be incomplete without it's inclusion.
  • Comment The group's own website is not a valid independent source. Again, the movement has to have been the subject of article by a reliable source independent of the church to qualify as notable. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response There are churches in 8 nations and 7 states that the Portland Church is overseeing. If their websites are considered our group's website, then it illustrates that the Portland Movement is internationally noteworthy and tied via leadership this international scope of churches.
  • Comment You missed the point of what I was saying. If this movement really is spread across the nation as you claim to be, can you show us works from independent sources (like newspapers or magazines) that verify your claims? Simply stating it's notable because it has X number of churches or Y number of followers isn't enough; you have to substantiate such claims. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I had speedied this article as a copyright violation of this page. Wording is strangely similar in many places of the article as to be a coincidence. While the subject itself may be notable, the article needs to be completely rewritten as per our policies. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The wording is "strangely similar because much of the article was written by the same man, Kip McKean. I can go back and edit the wording if that makes the article legit.CdHess 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio and as non notable church, and most of the info unverifiable from independent sources. If kept, it needs to be thoroughly rewritten, from a NPOV. Fram 13:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete: Please explain in detail how this church is non-notable compared to say, Lahu Christian churches or any other article such as List of comic strips. My point is is that a notable church to one person may not be a notable church to another. Many people are watching what is going on in Portland. See: "ICOCNews.com" or " A Renovator, not an Innovator." for examples of others who are not affiliated with Portland that are interested in what is going on. The Movement is legitimate no matter how small it may be. As far as the copyvio, see above comment made by me. There were many church movements of the past that never really got very big yet are still considered notable. CdHess 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply: As has been explained, you have to show from verifiable, independent sources (ICOC is hardly independent) that the church or movement is notable. What is the total number of followers? It all seems very small and limited. I'm not comparing to other churches or other articles (perhaps they are deletable as well), and a list is a different thing, as that is (logically) a list of things that are themselves notable or non notable. The comics on that list (at least the Franco-Belgian ones) have sold millions of copies, have been constantly in print for decades, have been translated in many languages, ... All of them are the source of multiple independent reviews, articles, and often complete studies. They are clearly notable. And could you give some examples of the "many chruch movements of the past that never really got very big yet are still considered notable"? Exclude those that led to mass suicides or large court cases for sexual abuse and so on, as those are notable for those reasons, not for being a church movement as such... As for the copyvio, how are we to definitely know (in a legally safe way, according to Wikipedia policy) that it is the same person that has written the article, and not someone who has just copied it from that website? And an article written by one of its key subjects is often a bad idea and may easily violate WP:NPOV, as you can see in sections like "Division" (calling the new vision "reactionary" is a clear example of POV. Forums "poisoned" the members is another example. The movement is less than a year old, and has no outside sources. It is non notable, not verifiable, written from a clear POV, and is technically a copyvio. More than enough reasons for a deletion. Fram 12:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It is very difficult to write from a perfectly NPOV. Everyone has built in biases and therefore will never truly write from a perfectly NPOV. I have tried my hardest to make sure that the article is NPOV. I welcome any suggestions and have already noted your previous suggestions. As far as the copyvio, a letter has been written to Wikimedia that states clearly that I have been comissioned by the Portland Church to write this article. I am not sure if that is good enough. CdHess 16:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: In the WP:ACM it mentions "deleting" - the first qualifier there is that something may be "poorly" written, but still have it's purpose. This content has purpose - it is a connection to the Wikipedia Kip McKean and ICOC entries. Ironically, WP:WQT mentions in the "How to avoid the abuse of talk pages" not to lable something as "poorly written." I digress. Jeremy Ciaramella 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, I've moved your comment above to its own thread, as it's generally considered unproductive to insert comments, out of chronological order, in the middle of a thread. Also, you'll note that I added the Comment tag. This is a very useful tool for keeping these discussions readable, as it distinguishes additional information from one's original opinion on retention. Thanks! Pleather 17:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: the above unsigned comment was from Jeremy Ciaramella. Two things, Jeffery: one, you've already stated Do Not Delete in an earlier post. The accepted mode of participating in AfD discussions is to state your opinion (not a vote, because this is consensus) just once. You label further comments "Comments".
  • Oops - forgot the tilda's. Yes the copyvio response was my post. This is the first "AfD" I've got privilege to participate in. Thank you for the explanation regarding the use of comment and Do Not Delete. My name is Jeremy, not Jeffrey. Jeremy Ciaramella 19:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, the debate at hand is NOT copyright violation; that was the criteria for the "speedy delete" process, which is now over. Please, please understand that the topic at hand is Notability. Just because something is described as a "movement" doesn't make it so: hard data--numbers and facts--make it so. I see "The Portland Church currently is actively overseeing congregations in 8 different nations" and "The Portland Movement is a part of the ethos of Kip McKean". What, exactly, does "overseeing congregations" mean? How does "ethos" relate to notability? Pleather 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I did not realize that the debate for "speedy delete" process was over. Thank you again for clarification. To oversee a congregation means that the Portland Church directly influences, trains, and works with the given local congregation and its leadership. That local congregation shares the same goals as the Portland Movement, and the same/very similar church building methodologies. It also means that the local church does not practice Autonomy. Ethos is defined as "the character or disposition of a community, group, person, etc." and the ICOC is a large community of churches, with thousands of members - even after its upheavals. The Portland Movement is a part of this community - albeit contraversial - and recording its activity in relation to the ICOC community and a key individual (Kip McKean) rounds out the description of the ethos of the ICOC and Kip McKean. Futher defining both of these entries' dispositions in Wikipedia. Jeremy Ciaramella 19:33, 15 September 2006 (
  • Delete as the supporters of keeping this article has offered no evidence to why this religious movement is notable per WP:ORG. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 03:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)