Talk:Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

message: I've put the notability tag back up here and it will stay until notability has been met.  As of now I don't think 1 cited source and 3 references amounting to a couple small paragraphs worth of information is notable.  Notability guidlines say that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and I don't think what is included proves significant coverage.  This does not mean that this article cannot be notable but as of right now it does not display meet notability guidelines.
However I would be in favor of merging the 2 schismatic articles into a broader article such as Schisms (The Church of Jesus Christ) that could include both church's and more information.  I think it would be better to do that since there seems to be a link between the 1907 and 1914 groups.  JRN 16:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're so concerned with notability, start an AFD—let editors decide rather than just yourself. You're interpreting the word "signficant" in the guideline in a way that confirms your pre-existing biases (if any). Generally, 4 reliable sources satisfy the notability requirement. If you don't think so—start the AFD. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you are right and the article is not notable, then the logical solution is to include the information at The Church of Jesus Christ. You seemed opposed to that when I first suggested it, which is why I made the separate article. You can't have it both ways, my friend. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never opposed including the information.  Get your facts straight and stop making assumptions.  A WP:CIVIL tone might help you out also. JRN 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes and you do very well taking it out context to try and make me look bad.  I was referring to the uproar and accusations of "glossing over" because those were not covered, even though the history didn't include that time period.  I never was opposed to additions of that information but was responding to accusations made against other edidotrs and I.  Again please be WP:CIVIL.  This is your second warning.  JRN 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I've added the template {Template:Citation needed}, which from your original edit summaries seemed to be your concern and what you were getting at. The article has sources to establish notability, but there are no specific footnotes yet for most of the individual sentences. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations tag

message: What should we move the page to in order to avoid using an offensive term.  Howabout just (William Bickerton)?  I am making the change now because the term is offensive and I am bold.  We can discuss the final location -- I am open to it being something else but this just eliminates the offensive term.  Jcg5029 05:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear some have offered to change this page to (Mon City, PA).  I would generally be opposed for this, but probably could be convinced, because the two breakoffs did not have headquarters in Monongahela. Just some thoughts to ponder while we decide what to do.  Jcg5029 06:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Using his name is fine, but there's no need to use the first name "William" since there is no other person with the last name of Bickerton that is related to the development of a similarly named church. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAME