Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church Universal and Triumphant


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Church Universal and Triumphant

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article bases notability of this organization on the claimed membership levels but no source is available that makes any definitive claim. Elizabeth Clare Prophet published a lot of lengthy texts on what she considered spiritual enlightenment but this does not establish notability sufficiently for a Wikipedia article. The organization fails WP:ORG due to a lack of real third party reliable sources, references such as the "Encyclopedia of American Religions" do not establish notability as they are in the business of identifying every possible self-declared religious organization. The article should be deleted as it adds no value to Wikipedia not already established by the exhaustive Elizabeth Clare Prophet article. Ash (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looking at the searches linked above, there does appear to be substantial coverage of this movement. Obviously, unreliable sources should be removed, but there appears to be more than enough to meet the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets the "I heard of it before seeing a Wikipedia article" test.  The Summit Lighthouse and its affiliated organizations are in fact quite notable.  Google News gives us three decades worth of hits. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. They were all over nationwide reporting in the late 80's and early 90s for their famous retreat to the underground bunkers, you shouldn't have to rival the size of Roman Catholicism for inclusion, and Wikipedia is not Brittanica.  It would be a little like saying don't create an LDS church article since it's already covered by the one on Joseph Smith.  Chris Rodgers (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep. In addition to having been prominent in the news in the late 80s and early 90s, a search on Google Scholar finds plenty of books and articles either directly about or mentioning aspects of the CUT published in the last 10 years.  Also, since Elizabeth Clare Prophet has left public life, the future path of the church will presumably not find ideal coverage in her WP article.  Gracehoper (talk) 22:06, 15 September 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.