Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan (Triumph of Truth)


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan (Triumph of Truth)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, OR, smells of copyvio. "Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan" -wikipedia Google search gives 10 hits, all Wikipedia mirrors. Makes outrageous claims "More than a million individuals (members and non members) have been directly treated, operated and healed by Archangel Raphael, [1] together with Archangel Michael, for free." Cricketgirl (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Any chance of tagging it for speedy? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Hammer1980 ·talk 23:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not notable. --&#946;ritand&#946;eyonce (talk•contribs) 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There are lots of cults that have that outrageous claim.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit/merge. The spiritist religions in the Philippines is a legitimate topic. The problem is that this article was so poorly organized and written that it is hard to even determine its relevance. Take a look at the new religious movements in Japan as an example of a short article format that could be a model for spiritist movements in the Philippines. The is also another spiritist religion article, Unión Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas, Inc. that this article could be merged into. Vontrotta (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or at the very least merge with Unión Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas, Inc. It is difficult to tell if this subject is notable or not since the article is so unclear.  Under normal circumstances I would vote to keep and improve, but this article appears to be the pet project of one editor who will revert (or at least work against) improvements to the article.  I tired editing this article at the end of August and was quickly reverted by user Espiritista.  This user seems to only edit these two pages and I suspect does not fully understand Wikipedia's standards.  I applaud Vontrotta for having the endurance to consistently work on and clean these two articles, but I suspect that this one is a lost cause.   Sbacle (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2007 (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.