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. I have discounted the SPAs. The remaining keep arguments are variations on "definitely a real organization", which is not exactly an incisive, policy-based argument. A Train^talk 12:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Christian Coalition

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline WP:HOAX. This is essentially a website with a list of churches. There is indeed an organisation, but it has a fake NY address, and it doesn't represent anybody else, as it claims to, since it adds denominations to the list without their knowledge or permission. Also, there is a complete lack of notability - no independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. St Anselm (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this is a legitimate organization as I noted on the article's Talk page. There were already reliable secondary sources (FaithStreet, TGC) and yesterday someone pointed out that the CCC is in the UN's Civil Society Database, which is about as reliable as you can get. It claims to have been founded two years ago, so a lack of notability in news articles is not surprising. I vote to keep, but suggest possibly revising some of the wording in the article. - Elder-ado (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC) — Elder-ado (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The UN and Gospel Coalition references are just directory listings - see [1]. Even if it is a real organisation, it is not a notable one. The fact that that might because it's relatively new makes no difference to us here on WP. St Anselm (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't just any listings. They're the United Nations and The Gospel Coalition. The former isn't just a directory - they have stringent review processes for inclusion. The United Nations DESA database is notable in itself. The latter is one of the largest and most notable evangelical organizations in the United States, which also doesn't arbitrarily add listings. I think this discussion was probably premature and there are likely more sources out there. Many, many articles have fewer and less notable sources including some of your own (apparently). - Elder-ado (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the UN listings are reviewed, but it's too much to say they have a "stringent review process". It appears any NGO may be added. St Anselm (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable enough. We should keep it, but I can help revise wording that might not be neutral. The sources are good, but it could use a few more just like most articles out there. From a quick search I was able to find that UN source and I also just found a few published sources.--Kigozi Af (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC) — Kigozi Af (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

When you say "enough", what threshold of notability are you using? St Anselm (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems users have added plenty of sources that appear to be reliable, I would encourage you to give it a rest. There are thousands of articles with fewer, more dubious, or no sources and as a previous user pointed out--even some of your own. This is a real, albeit young organization that was formed by a number of church leaders, primarily from the U.S., but also some from Africa, Latin America, and the Philippines. I also know first-hand that the CCC funds an orphanage and school network in Kampala. DavidStats (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If genuinely what is claimed, this has the potential to be a very significant organisation, but it appears to be seeking to be a clone of World Evangelical Alliance. My preference would be to keep but heavily tag it for better sourcing: I found nothing in the way of G-news or newspaper hits, which O would have expected if truly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, that sounds like the most reasonable approach. I can fix the POV and notability issues. So we keep, but leave the "primary sources" tag? Are there any other tags to add to help expand this article? From what I can find it is similar to the World Evangelical Alliance, but with perhaps a slightly more conservative slant and different organizational objectives (see http://www.ccc.one/p/purpose.html). Similar to the difference between the World Reformed Fellowship and the World Communion of Reformed Churches.--Kigozi Af (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that this article already has more secondary sourcing than similar organizations that have mostly only primary sourcing (or no refs) such as the World Reformed Fellowship, International Lutheran Council, Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference, International Conference of Reformed Churches, among others.--Kigozi Af (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But those could be easily sourced with significant coverage in reliable sources - e.g. [2]. No such sourcing exists for CCC. In any case, those organizations have an actual membership; CCC does not. St Anselm (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denominations don't join, but churches and ministries do, so, yes, it does have membership. I even know the leadership from a few of the churches that have formally joined including Church of Christ at Gold Hill in Fort Mill and Syosset Gospel Church in Syosset, NY. DavidStats (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's definitely a real organization. A number of other references were added in response to the nomination for deletion and POV was improved. Close the discussion, but add tags to help expand. DavidStats (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Google search] for "Covenant Christian Coalition" excluding its website - ccc.on - and the subsidiary sites godsong.org and hehodos.com returns only 4 pages, and none of them is for a news outlet. That the CCC apparently lists an entire denomination and its membership as belonging to the CCC after even a single local congregation signs up means that it is trying to inflate its importance and influence. I would also note that several newly-created and single-purpose editors have been adding the CCC to the WP articles for the various denominations listed on the CCC membership page, which may mean a conflict of interest issue is also involved. Indyguy (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there were several things going on here. First, POV issues in the original article. Second, StAnselm's concerns over notability. Third, some user(s) added links, perhaps indiscriminately. The first issue seems to be resolved. The second issue seems to be resolved insofar as necessary for an independent article (WP notability does not require news sources; it already had refs in several reliable/reviewed Christian directories and refs from books, church websites, and even the UN were added subsequent to the nomination for deletion). That may not satisfy StAnselm, but it is arguably enough for inclusion. Third, I think the links might be a C.O.I. and should probably be removed, but I'll stick with keep for the main article in question. Also, StAnselm and IndyGuy have made some assumptive claims that can't be proven without further investigation. The previous claim "the CCC apparently lists an entire denomination and its membership as belonging to the CCC after even a single local congregation signs up" is not true according to their website and bylaws. It adds denominations based merely on a test of doctrine, but churches and ministries are added by registering and are actual members independent of the denominational list. DavidStats (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article as written is perpetuating a fraud on the encyclopedia. Extraordinary claims like "700 million members" require some independent referencing or notability. It's clearly not true that it represents some 1,479,414 local churches and approximately 704 million individuals. Based on the references, I'm not sure this exists as an organization beyond its website. There are a lot of SPAs voting here as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I read through all of this and have to side with keep. It's a real organization and plenty of sources were found after articles of deletion were added. Delete claims don't seem legitimate, just a POV issue, so fix the POV and add tags if necessary. Wiki rules very clearly discourage deletion of articles over POV disagreements. Clearly denominations don't join, but many churches apparently have. Their members are only Christian churches and ministries, but they endorse entire denominations apparently. Tech878 NN (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on Google books or Google news, and Google web is Facebook and mirrors. Manta reports, "We are a privately held company in New York, NY." FaithStreet and GospelCoalition are church directories with self-published pages. Whatever this is, it is at best a 2015 startup, one we can ignore (WP:SUSTAINED) until 2022. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2018 (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.