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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A True Church[edit]

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

I previously deleted this article as a hoax. The original creator insists that it is not a hoax, so I have undeleted it and am bringing it here for discussion. The "pastor" of this "church" is "Darwin Fish", which is the first clue that it is a parody church (like Landover Baptist Church), not a real church. At any rate, the church's website gets 249 g-hits [1] and "A True Church" along with "Darwin Fish" gets 103 g-hits, mostly self-generated [2]. So whether the church is real or a parody, it does not seem notable. BigDT 13:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Terence Ong 13:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pseudochurch does not satisfy WP:CONG, or more generally WP:RS or WP:N. Lacks sources to show it is not a hoax. Edison 15:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • False. It has several external publications[3][4][5][6][7][8], and it very well fits one (or more) of the notability guidelines from WP:CONG: "The church's teachings or theology is considered unique or notably controversial. The teachings should be of the individual church, not its denomination." --qrc 16:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it is notable and not a hoax. You have judged it by its appearance rather than actually checking out the sources:
  • His name is, indeed, Darwin Fish. He writes: "The name Darwin is not evil, as you erroneously state. An evil man had this name (it was his last name, not his first name), but the name itself is not evil. I also reject what the man taught. [...] I will not dishonor my parents by changing my name, as you wickedly want me to do." He also writes: "Yes, Darwin Fish is my real name. It is the name my parents gave me when I was born in 1961. At the time, to my knowledge, there was no "DarwinFish" symbol made up at that time. My father's last name is "Fish," and my mother liked the name Darwin. So, this is my name. Some have suggested that I should change it, but I don't believe that would be honoring my father and mother (Exodus 20:12)."
  • There were several external publications proving its notability and its validity. [9][10][11][12][13][14]
  • Therefore, it should stay. --qrc 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting ... the Post article about Graham that mentions this guy still doesn't give me any confidence there is actually a church there. It looks like he was out there holding up a sign and a reporter said, "ok, I'll bite, what are you up to". Searching for "A True Church" in Lake Hughes, CA comes up empty at switchboard.com - [15] - so if they are real, they aren't in the phone book. --BigDT 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How ever much confidence you have in the church's existence does not really constitute that the article ought to be deleted. If it is indeed real, you are playing a cruel game by trying to delete the article just because Darwin Fish's parents gave him a name that nowadays would be considered ridiculous. I have spoken to Albert Soto, the guy who made the website for Darwin, and I've watched their documentaries. You associate this church with the Landover Baptist Church, but if you go to the A True Church website, you won't find anything vaguely satirical as you will on Landover's. The Westboro Baptist Church has a less credible website than A True Church, but is just as notable for the controversies it has stirred up. As a matter of fact, they once both protested at the same Billy Graham crusade, and people were confused by who was who because the signs they held up were equally offensive. (The Westboro Baptists and ATCers hate each other, by the way. [16][17]) --qrc 16:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. If you're still not sure whether or not it's real, call the 800 number and have Darwin Fish preach to you in a recorded message. 1-800-HOW-TRUE. He reads you a similar message to what is written on the 800-HOW-TRUE site. --qrc 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Qrc, it is not a question of what certain editors - whether BigDT or you - believe. It is a question of what can be verified using reliable sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pastordavid (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
          • Indeed, Pastor David, it's not a question of what we believe. The sources, if you check them, do verify the validity of the article. However, that's not to discredit the value in merely trying convince someone so that I'd have someone else on my side, which is what I was doing. --qrc 17:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't question that the website really exists. I don't question that there is really some buy out there who is calling himself "Darwin Fish", be that a given name or a pseudonym. But is there any actual evidence that there is any real church building I can drive up to and that this whole thing isn't just a single guy's creation? --BigDT 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • As an aside, switchboard.com says there is an individual named "Fish, Darwin" in Temecula, CA, but that's 134 miles from Lake Hughes, CA, which is the alleged location of this "church". --BigDT 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I guess when he changed the name from God's Word Fellowship to a true church, he moved as well. Also, on the usage of the word "church": Biblically, the location of a church is the pastor's house. That's building you'd be driving up to. A "church" actually means a group of believers; it is not a building. --qrc 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - although it looks like a hoax, there are some references, and I think we have to assume good faith in relation to the author's intentions. I've made the mistake in the past of labelling articles as hoaxes when they turn out to be bona-fide; I don't want to repeat the same mistake here. Walton monarchist89 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, come to think of it, I'm not convinced it's notable enough - individual religious congregations don't usually get their own articles, unless they have demonstrable importance outside of the local area. Walton monarchist89 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:CONG proposed guideline on this matter lists the following as a qualification for notability: "The church's teachings or theology is considered unique or notably controversial. The teachings should be of the individual church, not its denomination." As long as the congregation has accompanying external publications, which this one does, it appears it meets the notability requirements, since these external publications show the uniqueness of the congregation and the controversy that it stirs up. The Reformed Evangelist wrote: "If you live in the California area or have attended a Christian conference in CA there is no doubt that you have run into the “Fishites”, these Stormtroopers in sunglasses with huge signs reading – “God Kills”, Billy Graham Leads To Hell”, etc." So indeed, it does appear that this congregation has influence outside of its local area, assuming you believe the state of California to be a suitably wide influence. --qrc 17:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'd concede that to be adequate evidence of notability, so I vote Keep. But more sources are still needed. Walton monarchist89 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article intro itself would seem to assert a lack of notability. "A True Church (previously God's Word Fellowship) is a small Christian home fellowship based in Lake Hughes, California headed by pastor Darwin Fish." --BigDT 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• One possible compromise - I thought I would throw this out there. From the sources that qrc has provided, it's obvious that there is a person out there calling himself Darwin Fish and about whom there are at least some non-trivial media mentions. So even though the existence of this church is questionable and if it does exist, it isn't very notable, Darwin Fish might be a worthwhile article. If the decision here is to keep, we could move the article to Darwin Fish and change it to be more about him and less of a copy/paste of his doctrinal beliefs. --BigDT 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't hink it is a hoax -- there is a listing for God's Word Fellowship about ten miles from the website's PO box. However, I also don't think it is notable. The only newstories are protests of the Billy Graham crusades -- Graham is notable, and his association with the group is the only reason they get attention -- nothing about the church in itself is notable. The best place for info about this group is -- perhaps -- in a footnote on the Billy Graham page. Pastordavid 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The primary assertions of notability in the article do not qualify as reliable sources -- WP:RS. -- Pastordavid 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anything in WP:RS indicating that publications like the Washington Post are unreliable. --qrc 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the Washington Post doesn't tell anything about the Church. It's a human interest story along the lines of "look at this funny guy who is protesting Billy Graham". It doesn't confirm the existence of the church or provide any useful information about it. --BigDT 18:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but it proves that he exists, and this existence is expanded upon in greater depth in other, albeit less reliable, sources. But I still really don't understand why you question the church's existence just because there are no big publications to prove it -- the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources should not act as guides for your own mind. They have produced video documentaries which show the church's members, and people outside the church have taken pictures of the protesters (yes there are more than one). --qrc 18:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are plenty of churches/ministries/organizations/whatever on the internet that are really just the thoughts/teachings/rantings of one person. I keep a lot of Christian eschatology-related pages watchlisted and they are constantly getting spammed with links to websites that use the word "church" or "ministry", but are really just some guy's website. That's my concern with this one - if it has no physical address or evidence that it exists, is it just some guy's website? --BigDT 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It has an address (a true church, PO Box 797, Lake Hughes, CA 93532) and physical evidence (video documentaries that cannot possibly be produced by the one guy who wrote the website, church member's website). So what's the issue? --qrc 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You state that Mr. Fish actually exists, but this is not enough for the article to be kept. Notability is a central guideline -- mere existence is not enough. I exist, for example, but I am not the subject of an article. This is as it should be, despite the fact that you could find documentation proving my existence. --N Shar 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reliable source proves he exists, and the allegedly unreliable sources show that it's not just him, but a whole controversial group of believers. That's how it is, and there's nothing more can possibly I show in defense in the article. --qrc 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your comment suggests that you have not read my comment. I stated that notability is the central criterion in the case of this article. WP:N states: "All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia." You may be able to attest to the truth of the information in the article, as you have repeatedly stated, but the debate is not about whether that information is correct, but whether the organization is notable. "A whole controversial group of believers" may be notable, or not, depending on the extent to which multiple non-trivial, reliable sources document them. You have provided one non-trivial, reliable source independent of the subject. WP:N requires "multiple" sources, and states that "The 'multiple' qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability. " In this case, definitely at least two and probably more reliable sources are required. --N Shar 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Although the other sources are clearly not reliable, doesn't at least the Kentucky Post qualify as a reliable source in addition to the Washington Post? --qrc 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Though the source is indeed reliable (at least I think it is), the subject is really Mr. Graham, not Mr. Fish. Fish is quoted in the article as a commentator on the subject -- he is not himself the subject. --N Shar 00:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • WP:N does not seem to exclude reliable published works on the mere basis of who the subject of the article is. It talks about non-triviality, but in that arena it only excludes mere directory listings. Two articles quoting Darwin Fish and/or his church-goers as commentators on the Billy Graham crusade is more than a mere directory listing, and for this reason I think it checks out as mildly notable. Plus, the San Diego CityBEAT article addresses A True Church directly, and even quotes one of its members rather than just Darwin Fish. However, I am unsure of San Diego CityBEAT's reliability and could use help determining it. --qrc 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • With all due respect, please note that lawyering is not going to change our minds. My suggestion is to find other reliable sources that talk specifically about Mr. Fish, not talk specifically about somebody and Mr. Fish is simply being quoted about it. Like I pointed out in my !vote below, making a lot of noise isn't notable unto itself - it's just making a lot of noise. --Dennisthe2 04:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think that A True Church's staunch opposition to Billy Graham through protest is an accurate representation of the church in itself, and its beliefs? They are practically founded on exposing other people they believe to be false teachers. The Billy Graham protests are the best testimonies to the church itself. It's what they do. --qrc 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Perhaps not a hoax, but we have only one reliable source -- the Washington Post article -- and WP:N requires multiple sources. The question of whether that article is really a source at all is important, but unless another source is found it doesn't actually matter. I'm also concerned about WP:V owing to the lack of reliable sources; remember, the criterion is verifiability, not truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N Shar (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak delete The references prove nothing. The WashPost article proves the reporter bumped into a man calling himself Darwin Fish who claimed to be affiliated with "something called A True Church". There's no verifiable evidence of notability. If Fish and A True Church exist, has anyone noted it? I was once interviewed before voting in 2000, and got my name in the paper, just because I was standing line at the polling place. It doesn't prove I exist and certainly doesn't make me notable. If a reporter asked me to meet with him to talk about my great idea and the editor put that story in a notable periodical, THEN there's some evidence of notability. Has any reporter gone to A True Church to talk about what happens at the church? If so, cite it. --JJLatWiki 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The San Diego CityBEAT talks about it. [18] --qrc 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another reporter who bumped into a stranger in the parking lot at a Billy Graham event. The reporter also bumped into Yediydyah of The 12 Tribes of the Commonwealth of Israel. That doesn't make either church or person notable. They happened to be at the same place at the same time. --JJLatWiki 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Reporters bump into strangers every day, but they only write about the ones that matter. Darwin Fish and/or A True Church were considered notable enough for the Washington Times, Kentucky Post, and San Diego CityBEAT. And again on notability: A True Church is clearly not notable enough for WP:N, but it is still notable enough to fit the standards described in WP:CONG. --qrc 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree. Reporters often mention the name of a single protester they bump into while covering a large protest, that doesn't mean that person is notable. The question is, would any of the papers picked up the stories if not for the Billy Graham context? I doubt it. Can you find a story in a notable publication that is ABOUT only A True Church? --JJLatWiki 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow. Very unorthodox. But the only problem I seem to have is that the only notability they have is in that they are pretty much all about making a lot of noise. In reviewing the links, I find little more than that - and hey, I can make a lot of noise too, so that can't be all that notable. Delete. --Dennisthe2 00:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The newspaper articles come close, but each, when read in full, is primarily about either a Billy Graham crusade or protesting at a Billy Graham crusade, and this group/guy just happens to be a current example. In the Washington Post article, only paragraphs 2 and 3 of 23 discuss it - this is a passing mention. Similarly in the Kentucky Post article, three of 23 paragraphs mention this group - again a passing mention. San Diego City Beat, relatively in the groups backyard, comes the closest to focusing on the group, but again is more focused on the issue of protesting. OnDoctrine.com is a single person's self published website, so not a reliable source by our standards - see their about us page. The FactNet link is a forum, not a reliable source by our standards. A Voice in the Wilderness is also a single person's website, self published, so not a reliable source for our standards. No non-trivial, reliable, independent, published sources primarily about the group have been demonstrated. GRBerry 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - note for those spotting the address - Lake Hughes, CA is one of those areas with no carrier service if I remember right, so a post office box only will be perfectly normal. Granted, this doesn't make it notable. Just sayin'. --Dennisthe2 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable LazyDaisy 13:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable; it doesn't even occur in its hometown's phonebook, and that's bad. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:08, 30 January 2007 (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.