Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grace Evangelical Society

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 no consensus. --Core desat 08:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Grace Evangelical Society

Article has asserted notability so it passes A7, but the notability does not seem to be fully established. -WarthogDemon 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep about 2800 google hits.Balloonman 18:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Googling suggests it doesn't appear to have a very large presence in theological thought. That aside, the article has big problems with source quality (e.g. citing Theopedia), neutrality and original research (particularly inference alongthe lines of "X referrring to it means it's important"). Check out Zane C. Hodges and recent additions to Lordship salvation for more of the same. Gordonofcartoon 21:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing a simple Google test is not a reason for keep. I see no instances of significant coverage in reliable, indepdent news sources that would verify notability for this subject. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is information to write an article, the article can stand. On the other hand, the article is at present somewhat incoherent, reflecting the detailed controversy between two groups that seem to reflect unusual views of christianity., I think a more informed article could be written.DGG (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "free grace" vs "lordship salvation" dispute isn't dramatically unusual on the US evangelical circuit. But my main impression is that this is about writing one minor player into centre stage. Peer review would be useful. Gordonofcartoon 01:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Your point about proportional coverage bothered me also. This general topic has been discussed since the beginnings of Christianity, and the article makes it seem as if this group started the discussion for the first time. DGG (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Specifically relating to current Christianity, the GES is just one of many ministries with this stance (a typical online list here) so I think undue weight is an issue, even more so at Lordship salvation. Not sure why Free grace redirects there; it seems notable in itself. Gordonofcartoon 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont think an article should remain if the notability is not established. Only mentions through Google NEWS archives are trivial and the references in the article itself are not from independent sources Corpx 04:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this sounds more like an article on the founder than the society. Given his books, articles (both need better referenes) the article may be more worthwhile than this society. If not a merge, this does not appear to meet notability standards. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as notable, but needs much better sourcing. Bearian 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the entry and I’ll work on clarifying it and improving the sources. About the hits, is it possible the GES is a special situation? Any organization that critiques the establishment of a subculture, because of its controversial mission is going to be censured from the limited subculture venues where ideas become popular. Yet the digital collections of conservative theological journals have long included the GES journal. Thanks for your consideration of this entry. Johanna Sawyer 22:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is going to be censured from the limited subculture venues where ideas become popular

Maybe that's the case, but generally that kind of problem isn't given much slack here, and it doesn't excuse articles from neutral point of view and original research policies. Gordonofcartoon 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shifted the entry toward a more nuetral pov, added some sources, added some historical precedent, shortened the bio of the founder, and having done that, am not sure where there is fresh research... I think a section on Free Grace Theo historical precedents (with sources, not original research), and current Free Grace organizations might round out the entry Johanna Sawyer 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to look at other articles in Category:Christian organizations. One reason the current article is offputting is that from the outset it relentlessly slugs the reader with the theological detail (most of which belongs in a separate article about Free Grace theology) while omitting basic stuff like where The Grace Evangelical Society is based, when they were founded, etc. Gordonofcartoon 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ok that sounds like a good plan, thanks.Johanna Sawyer 19:57, 24 July 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.