Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Creator


 * 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   redirect to Creativity (religion). Black Kite (t) (c) 11:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Church of the Creator

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. Aside from one court case settling a dispute with a completely different organization using the same name, lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per IAR. Redirect per below. I'd !vote to redirect to Hale or to the Creativity Movement given those are where the only significant coverage emerges. However, as there is no actual relationship between CotC and Hale/CM and given the latter are such controversial topics, I don't think a redirect would be reasonable here. Maybe if we did an article on the case itself, that would resolve it? At any rate, for the time being, I'd rather not toss out this subject because of the possible confusion with CM (hence the court case). Hence, IAR keep. There may be material out there, but I'm evidently not looking hard enough. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll also note that the current content of the article is quite bad and may contain excess unnecessary quotations and advert-like material. Obviously, this has to change. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just as there is insufficient material on the church, there is also insufficient material on the court case to justify an article. The closest I can come to your approach would be to add a small section to the Creativity Movement about the case and redirect to that section. Otherwise, to avoid confusion (as you are seeking), we would need to pepper Wikipedia with tens of thousands of articles about non-notable people and organizations so that someone looking to read about John Smith the non-notable guy the school board doesn't end up reading about another John Smith who is a convicted felon. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A redir to section sounds OK to me. Call that my first choice then. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment It appears this may have been created by someone with a vested interest in differentiating this entity from the white supremacist one. Other than than, it seems to have no notability on its own and yes the current version appears to be a copy and paste from another source. What a mess. I'm undecided on keep/delete pending further research. Valfontis (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. For a similar Oregon-related case, in which an otherwise non-notable person was added to a dab page in order to differentiate between a controversial and a non-controversial subject, see Les Balsiger and related discussions: Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger (disambiguation), Talk:Les Balsiger (activist), Talk:Les Balsiger (disambiguation) and elsewhere. Valfontis (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that disorganization and lack of references are not criteria for deletion. See WP:RUBBISH. As far as I can tell, this discussion should hinge entirely on notability, with perhaps a dash of WP:ORG and WP:SOAP. Valfontis (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- The article is very unorganized (it has no sections) with only one reference and lacking many that it needs because of its length. With no reliable coverage, this needs to be deleted. Jsayre64   (talk)  00:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unorganized, sloppy, no third party sources... not worth having on wikipedia. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect Checking the page history reveals the article existed in this state until December 16, when an anonymous editor added what appears to a copy and paste from the church's own website. (Note the telltale "Home" and "More".) A Google News search reveals no references to "TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation" free of mention of the other group or the court case. Thus, per nom, it fails the notability standard of multiple reliable independent third party sources and significant coverage. And also per the nom's comments, I think a redirect to the suitable section in Creativity Movement is appropriate. I'm no judge of the importance of the court case, so if that merits its own article, the page should redirect there at such time an article is created. Valfontis (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect Perhaps a redirect to Creativity (religion) would be appropriate, as this was the name used by that religion for it's church until the trademark case?  It is a more neutral redirect than the redirect to either the Creativity Movement or the Creativity Alliance.  --SCochran4 (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If it was clear where this church was located, I would suggest merging the pre-16 December state of the article into the place where it is located. Material copied fromn the church website must be COPY-VIO.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2010 (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.