Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inclusive church

Inclusive church

Inclusive church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Religion, and Christianity. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment This is a hard topic to find unambiguous sources for, since Inclusive Church is a specific denomination in the UK, and also "inclusive" is such a common adjective. Passing uses of the term are many: , , but they don't seem to be talking about a consistent topic. I don't agree that the article has NPOV issues, but it is a clear WP:COATRACK, since the article is just a listing of LGBT events associated with various denominations in the United States. Leaning delete, but I want to see what other sources come up. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. It's not a denomination, even in the UK. I did find this which calls itself a network, is constituted as an educational charity, and appears to have been formed as a UK lobby. If that charity were notable, i.e., spoken about in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, I'd have thought Robbins would mention it. He doesn't. (That is, Keith Robbins, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales: The Christian Church, 1900-2000 (Oxford, 2008)) but even though that was published 2008, the charity was formed in 2003, which may put it just outside his remit, so that's not decisive. It's not clear to me that the charity is a notable subject, but it is clear this page is not about it (although may perhaps have been inspired by it). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Sirfurboy, the author of the article, User:Nathan B2, has written other articles that are entirely synthesised and then he has plastered them throughout Wikipedia. See Believers' Church, as well as the talk page discussion there, for another example. Anupam^Talk 15:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for flagging me to that page, but I don't think that Believers' Church is the same issue as here. There is a Believer's Church doctrine, particularly as an aspect of Baptist theology (in a broad sense), so the page is appropriate, albeit that the talk section you mentioned does raise a very good issue, and I've replied on that and made an edit there. For this discussion, let's stick to whether there are any sources for the concept of Inclusive church. If there are other pages you have concerns about, feel free to drop a note on my talk page and we can discuss there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Merge content into relevant articles and delete/redirect. Clear WP:COATRACK, with no real focus. Perhaps merge content into a "History of LGBT?Church" article? Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 21:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Even if we assume that an encyclopedic article about pro-LGBT churches can exist (which would likely duplicate List of Christian denominations affirming LGBTQ people), this page cannot be a basis for it. The title is wrong (because inclusivity is not limited to LGBT), and the history section is a list of events chosen by the page creator and not by secondary sources. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  In reality, according to the Welcoming, Inclusive, or Affirming? definition - Q Christian Fellowship, few denominations are truly affirming, since for the majority each local church determines its position. List of Christian denominations affirming LGBTQ people should be renamed List of inclusive Christian denominations for LGBTQ people. Nathan B2 (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Is the actual term [https://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/ Affirming Church? SenshiSun (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• • Delete per Nom: Absolutely a COATRACK. Non-notable concept as presented. This supposed "concept" applies to any church that affirms total LGBT inclusion. Affirming church redirects to the article. Some churches use the term inclusive community. This is similar to the UCC Open and Affirming. One problem is that at the top of the article, it states: "For the British organization, see Inclusive Church". The ambiguity is far too similar. The Q Christian Fellowship (QCF) distinguishes welcoming churches and affirming churches, different from inclusive churches, which "intentionally allow for differences in beliefs", indicating non-denominational. This is confusing because denominations are mentioned in the article. The author included the wording "inclusive" in a lead edit of ReconcilingWorks that I did not see mentioned in the article or sources. It was suggested to merge "into relevant articles", but that would be hard to determine, as I don't see a place[s] to merge. An interesting question would be: If there is no significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, maybe none, to directly support the concept without synthesis, how is this not a fringe theory as presented? -- Otr500 (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

    According to the Welcoming, Inclusive, or Affirming? definition - Q Christian Fellowship, few denominations are truly affirming, since for the majority, each local church determines its position. Building an Inclusive Church - ReconcilingWorks --Nathan B2 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Agree with nom and comments by Otr500 and others above. Asteramellus (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: It should be noted that if this article is deleted, there are multiple links on other articles to this article that have been added by the user who created this article. Those should be removed where they are present. Anupam^Talk 23:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, the "What links here" has to be followed and corrected. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep LGBTQ+ Inclusive churches are notable within faith communities, whether or not the larger denominations are affirming or not. Also, they are often newsworthy within religious denominations because they are sometimes seeking change within their traditions. They are also notable for the LGBTQ community because some people only feel safe attending a church that is inclusive and inclusive churches can serve as cultural centers for LGBTQ people in their local community. I say Keep. -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  At AfD we need to review sources to make the case for notability. Are there any independent reliable secondary sources using this term in a technical sense as a thing in itself? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  -Susannah Cornwall, Sexuality : The Inclusive Church Resource, Darton, Longman & Todd, 2014

  -Brandan J. Robertson, The Gospel of Inclusion, Revised Edition, A Christian Case for LGBT+ Inclusion in the Church, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2021

  -Yvan Bourquin, Joan Charras Sancho, L'accueil radical : Ressources pour une Eglise inclusive, Labor et Fides, 2017 Nathan B2 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep : Welcoming, Inclusive, or Affirming? - Q Christian Fellowship

Building an Inclusive Church - ReconcilingWorks

Building an Inclusive Church - More Light Presbyterians

Building an Inclusive Church - Reconciling Ministries Network

According to the Welcoming, Inclusive, or Affirming? definition - Q Christian Fellowship, few denominations are truly affirming, since for the majority each local church determines its position. List of Christian denominations affirming LGBTQ people should be renamed List of inclusive Christian denominations for LGBTQ people. --Nathan B2 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - Nathan B2, the page creator, has provided the above seven (actually six as one is repeated) sources. Before I present my source review, we note that Inclusive Church, with a big C, is a different Wikipedia page, not up for deletion, but about the UK based charity/network/advocacy group I discussed above. This page is not about that. That the network uses this term to self describe is a given. So let's look at the sources. To meet WP:GNG there must be multiple independent reliable secondary sources. The sources are:

1. Susannah Cornwall, Sexuality : The Inclusive Church Resource, Darton, Longman & Todd, 2014 - This is a publication of the Inclusive Church organisation. That is not independent. That the organisation uses its own chosen terminology is, again, a given. N
2. Brandan J. Robertson, The Gospel of Inclusion, Revised Edition, A Christian Case for LGBT+ Inclusion in the Church, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2021 - Robertson is an American progressive Christian author, independent of the UK organisation, but he does not actually use the term "inclusive church" himself. The only mention is on discussion of a church he visited in pages 70, 71 where he says "A few years ago, I was invited to preach at a self-proclaimed LGBT+ inclusive church." That is, he explicitly tells us, when using the term, that this is a self description bythe church he preached at. He doesn't use the term as a technical term. He explicitly clarifies it is a self description, so it is not independent of the network. N
3. Yvan Bourquin, Joan Charras Sancho, L'accueil radical : Ressources pour une Eglise inclusive, Labor et Fides, 2017 is a resource book that promotes "radical welcome," and unconditional inclusion regardless of race, social class or sexuality. It clearly majors on LGBTQ+ individuals and their families, but is about the wider issue of inclusion. I cannot see anywhere that it promotes the concept of "inclusive church" in the technical sense of this page. In any case, as it is a resource, if it coins and posits a term, it is not a secondary source about the term, but a primary sourcee. It is a primary resource about how to make your church welcoming to all. N
4. The Q Christian Fellowship link is a blog. Not a WP:RS. N
5. Building an Inclusive Church - ReconcilingWorks - This is another resource book, a primary source. It is not someone writing about the concept of an inclusive church, it is a resource kit saying, do this and you can "Build an Inclusive Church"^TM. Primary and not independent. N
6. Building an Inclusive Church - More Light Presbyterians - A page advertising their training using the above "Building an Inclusive Church"^TM resource. If the resource is not independent than neither is a training event based on it. That's clearly a primary resource, not independent. N
7. Building an Inclusive Church - Reconciling Ministries Network This is the same resource as 4 above (but the toolkit). Primary and not independent. N

There is also an open question, if we are to look at the "Building an Inclusive Church" material as in any way relevenat, whether this should be considered under WP:NORG. I don't think that's what the page intends, however. The page does not claim this is an adjunct of Building an Inclusive Church^TM, but that it describes a concept known as an "inclusive church". For that, we still have no independent reliable secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify? Clearly there is a topic here and I think we could have a valid article about it if it was worked on but it needs more work before it is ready to be an article. I am not entirely sure that "Inclusive church" is the correct title. The fact that it isn't in the titles of any of the sources is a concern. If it was "LGBT inclusive church" then that would be purely descriptive and more defensible but surely there is a WP:COMMONNAME?. The introduction is poor. It makes it sound like these churches are exclusively focused on LGBT issues when I'm sure that they are not exclusively for LGBT people and that they do all the normal church stuff too. What is needed is to identify some good sources that talk about this as an overall phenomenon and let them define the coverage. It should be made less US centric too. I can see why some might want to WP:TNT it. It's borderline but I think some of what is in the article might be reusable with better sources to guide it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

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.