Talk:International Churches of Christ

ICC in UK and Ireland

See what I added here to Kip McKean because that is where International Christian Church currently redirects. From reading this article though, it sounds as if it the tactics being used are identical to those described here. I'm very much a newb to this area though, so don't know all the ins and outs of what's transpired before. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It does sound familiar, but I don't think there's anything to be added to the ICOC article unless the new media coverage mentions it specifically. I'm surprised there's not a standalone article on the International Christian Church. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There was a decade ago but the consensus was to delete it because WP:ORG wasn't met. I still am in the camp that the RCC, BaCC, ICC or the newest Kip-influenced movement (RCW) aren't large or documented enough to make it encyclopedia-worthy. If we set a precedence that each off-shoot deserves it's own page, WP:ORG ideals become too loose. If some higher quality text such as this and the like adds the off-shoots, then perhaps we can rely more on academics vs fox-news, college emails, and pending civil suits for section header citations. Just my 2 cents. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

So there was. The AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Christian Church (2nd nomination). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It's a shame it was closed as delete and redirect and not the normal redirect. Page histories are useful in determining if what was previously judged as not notable would now pass. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It's been years but similar to the ICoC page (in its early years) , it was all primary sources. To me, if the only non-academic sources exist I am apathetic to its restoration. On a side note, I have the old page on a wordpad so if in 5-10 years they become relevant, I could paste the former data in the talk. All the primary source links are probably broken anyways. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

If it's all primary sources then there's probably not much worth in it. TarnishedPath^talk 23:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

International Churches of Christ

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for guidance on improvements which can be made to the article prior to nominating for GA. Note: I'd listed it for peer review previously; however, that timed out.

Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 01:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments by AdaCiccone

I'd like to comment on several things:

• Some contents in the lead go into more detail than it really should, like topics about criticism and lawsuit. Surely those two definitely belong there but should be in a more compressed/summarized form rather than detailed. Also, the lead should summarize the entire article, which I don't think it's doing that now.
• Some paragraphs feel very stacked and detailed and some of them sit next to short ones. Per GA criterion 3b, the article should stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Try to summarize some of the stacked ones while also enlarging the small ones. But in doing so, remember that it shouldn't be only about size alone.
• Some sections feel empty visually. My suggestion would be to add at least one visual item (could be anything) for each section but this isn't obligatory though.
• I think the History section should be about first and foremost about the church itself from the beginning to today. The legal issues should be a separate section, which then should be linked to History by adding a brief summary there.

That's all for now. Maybe I'll add some more in the future. AdaCiccone (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)