Talk:Grace Evangelical Society

message: I am not well versed in Wikipedia rules/procedures with respect to AfD or notability. 
And entirely unfamiliar until today with the GES, Dallas Seminary, or any of the other 
institutions and individuals who have been mentioned on this talk page, or contributed to it.
So why am I writing here? Because, after reading a quotation from some exegetical material
at the GES site, I wanted to learn something encyclopedic about the GES. Had there been no 
GES article in Wikipedia, I'd have been unable to satisfy this desire. 
Thus, this page an example of exactly the kind of article whose presence I value in Wikipedia.
How in the world did a non-evangelical come to read exegetical material from the GES site,
you may wonder. The answer is, someone at a Motley Fool investment discussion board quoted 
from it. People of many different religious persuasions participate in discussions there,
and occasionally some of them include scriptural quotations in their signatures, or even
in their argumentation.
Frankly, I would prefer to see the article expanded at least somewhat, to include some of the
information that is presently found only on its Talk page. Publius3 (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A Non-expert's view

message: The Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, clearly an independent source, has for years included The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society on it's Trinity Journal CD.  This demonstrates that the GES is considered notable. Following is a quote from Trinity's webpage describing different versions of the CD:
"Trinity Journal ...can now be read and searched along with a number of other theological journals(emphasis added-js). 
http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/trinityjournal/cd
 
Among the 15 journals included are:
*Master's Seminary Journal (2001)
*Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (2003)
Another Trinity Journal CD contains JOTGES from 1988.
Thank you for giving me time to present the notability of this page.
Johanna Sawyer 04:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Theopedia, being user-contributed without editorial control, is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, so no inference can be made from what it includes or cites.  In fact, by the WP:NOR policy, no inference can be made from anywhere on the basis of inclusion/exclusion or citation/noncitation. An organisation's importance in some context can only be judged by what reliable sources explicitly say about its importance. Gordonofcartoon 12:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: I've re-added the notability tag following a look at the GES website. This article survived the AFD, but it was not made clear during the AFD how small an organisation this is: just, it appears, a small company in Irving, Texas.
Much of this article belongs elsewhere, in generic articles on the Free Grace theology vs Lordship Salvation debate. Here, it wrongly gives the impression that the GES is the prime mover relating to this school of thought. It ain't. See this list. Gordonofcartoon 12:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability - take 2

message: À propos of nothing; I wonder why the GES staff page has a picture of Jim Carrey. Gordonofcartoon 12:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jim Carrey

message: When I searched google news, there were no hits for anything on "Grace Evangelical Society" in quotes.  without quotes, there are a bunch of news items with "Grace", "Evangelical", or "Society" in them.  The first 20 or so don't seem to be about the subject of this article  --Rocksanddirt 19:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that in another little bit (last afd only a month ago) it will be time for an other request for deletion based on a not notable group.  --Rocksanddirt 23:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Third party notability? 

message: Wiki's Ignore all rules rule is applicable here. An exception should be made because this particular theological controversy is sui generis. There are many vigorous theological debates within conservative Evangelical scholarship, but this controversy touches a nerve and is basically being played out without normal third party comment.  Therefore, the organization is disproportionately important because it represents the minority position on a uniquely core doctrine.  The Evangelical world's specialized philosophy of truth is pertinent here, making conservative scholarship uncomfortable that this foundational controversy has continued to exist.  (See Robert Sandeman and Anne Hutchinson for historic antecedents.) So it is watched without comment. 
Therefore, third party wise, the organization's inclusion in two major Theological Journal CD's (http://www.logos.com/products/details/3027 and http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/trinityjournal/cd) speaks volumes.  Despite the size of the organization, inclusion in the CD's strongly implies its notability.
John Piper, while not a third party, has made it clear that this organization is dangerous and therefore notable.  His viewpoint on this organization (The So-Called Lordship Salvation Debate)is relevant because I am asking that a common sense exception be made.  
As is shown above, by Gordon of cartoon, there are many other free grace ministries but only this one engages on the controversy.  There are tons of pro-Reformed theology pages on Wiki, this is a nuetral treatment of their critics. Thanks for considering the uniqueness of this organization, wiki is made better by its inclusion.
-Johanna Sawyer  —Preceding comment was added at 04:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability