Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Gnostic Church


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

American Gnostic Church

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable movement/organization. Speedy was declined due to "removed speedy, notability asserted per the founder of this movement (Aleister Crowley) having an article; in addition, religious movements do not qualify under A7", but the group was not founded by crowley as the article itself states, plus I considered it an organization and I think they call themselves one. They are listed here and called an organization  Anyway, not notable, a few brief mentions in WP:RS, nothing more, most of these 7 mentions  are not even about this org, but just happen to use the phrase, others are by the group themselves, or a passing mention in poems,  this is the best WP:RS which we can definitely be sure is about them,  the mention is one sentence saying the year they were founded. Sticky Parkin 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Sticky Parkin 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This religious organziation is too new, and has not garnered sufficient notoriety, to be considered notable. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sticky Parkin sums up the lack of notability for this religious movement. I've done several searches across a number of websites and have been unable to find any sources that cover this movement in depth. I removed the speedy tag for an erroneous reason, but the tag itself was erroneous because notability was asserted by the The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, a source in the article. Although this source mentioned American Agnostic Church in only 1 sentence, IMO this article asserts enough notability to require an AfD discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- seems to me that the nom' provides plenty of evidence about its notability (or notoriety for that matter, although that is a not a requirement). Encyclopedias are excellent sources for Wiki and mention in one, however briefly, is sufficient to merit inclusion here. --Michael C. Price talk 11:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A one-line sentence in an encyclopedia (titled Witchcraft Today: An Encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan Traditions) does not show enough notability to merit inclusion. The nom clearly sums up the lack of notability. Online sources and Google Books only give this movement a passing mention. The movement is not the subject of an article in the encyclopedia; it is only part of an outline. When I came to this AfD, I really wanted to support the inclusion of this article, but after looking at the nom's rationale and doing my own search for sources, I can only conclude that American Gnostic Church doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While being the subject of an article in a print encyclopedia is enough evidence that we should have an article, I don't believe merely being mentioned in an article about something or somebody else is sufficient. Neither of the prior commentators says enough about the sentence for me to know which, and the online link didn't reveal the answer to me.  GRBerry 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. It was my hope when creating the article to basically give the Thelema editors a basis from which to proceed. But it may well be that the source book was maybe a bit more thorough than might be reasonably required. If editors more familiar with the subject than I am are unaware of any other claims to notability, as seems to be the case, then I have no basis to think they're wrong. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To John Carter: If the content of this article can be merged to Thelema, I would support a merge/redirect there. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To GRBerry: I've posted the link to the encyclopedia below Michael C. Price's comment. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the link. If else turns up to make an article viable, I'd have to agree with delete.  That sentence in a long Chronology is not an article about this group, so it is not evidence that this meets the "other encyclopedia" test.  GRBerry 05:05, 12 January 2009 (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.