Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Humanity


 * 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. No reliable sources were introduced by the church member who commented last. If non-trivial, reliable, third-party sourcing can be provided, then this deletion can easily be overturned. &mdash; Caknuck 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Church of Humanity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not asserted, and no independent sources given. Very difficult to find anything relevant on e.g. Google. Oli Filth 08:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, text is a re-hash of that on the "official website", seems to be a marketing effort to get more people into the "church". Basically fails WP:V, WP:N and partially WP:NOR. Pedro | Chat  09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete By searching for "Church of Humanity" -Marvel -Wikipedia on a search engine, no reliable sources could be found. (Just forum and blog mention) As a newly begun church, there is no hint of any substantial achievements, let alone longevity. Does not satisfy WP:CORP.--Kylohk 09:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all real religions or sects should have articles, but there needs to be evidence they actually exist. This has no such evidence. DGG (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent or third-party sources. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but there is no evidence, as DGG said. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, no evidence of notability or coverage by multiple non-trivial sources. Burntsauce 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Anybody can make a website for their personal philosophy, and can claim however many members they wish to. However, the only truly online religion I've encountered has got to be Wikipedia itself.  Mandsford 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete Church exists, I'm a member. Seems unfair to persecute a church because it's new. Proof is in member lists and church's written material. Should I list it as reference? Is it even possible to obtain 3rd part sources. What do I do? We'd like to cooperate.Jiminezwaldorf 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Response That's exactly what would need to be done, Jimenez-- third party sources and a link to any reference as described above. It's not a matter of the church being new, but rather authenticity.  All of us here are recommending "delete" because we haven't seen independent proof that the COH is notable.  None of us would criticize anyone because of their religious belief.  As noted, anyone can make a website, but not everyone can get coverage in the press.  Much of the skepticism comes from the statements that the COH wouldn't reveal its numbers.  I do note that there are 900+ "ghits" (hits when doing a Google search), although few that seem to connect to news media.  Save the article, since it's been on the deletion log for awhile and might get deleted when administrator has to make a decision.  If that happens, you can ask for deletion review.  Mandsford 12:22, 31 July 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.