Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross

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


 * Delete as nominator. Article fails notability guidelines. Most telling : -- Secisek (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As nominator, it's already assumed you want the article deleted, so I struck the double vote as a courtesy. The Google News search you really want to look at is this one which checks all dates, rather than just the past month (the default) as yours did.  I'm still evaluating the merits of the group. Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Apparently an autocephelas non-denominational group registered as a NPO in a single US state.  While I could find this group mentioned online (especially in directories of similar independent groups) I found no evidence that they have generated media coverage, literary mentions, etc.  Also note while there is/was apparently a Roman Catholic religious order whose name has been translated as "Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross" on at least some occasions, this group is unrelated. --Boston (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note request by User:WereSpielChequers at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross. --Boston (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete subject's notability has not been established. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur, there should be something on the internet besides the entity's website otherwise how do we even know it isn't just some hoax?  Nancy Heise    talk  15:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's indication the group isn't a hoax; whether the "order" has any members other than the abbot is another matter. --Boston (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Cistercian Order, with no prejudice against splitting it out to here again once sourcing for this Cistercian order improves. There's plenty of coverage for Cistercians in general, but most of it just names the monastery, not the order.  I've found a lot about the Cistercian Order of the Strict Observance, which I presume to be a different order.  Regardless, it's clear that Cistercian monks and monasterys as a whole are notable--It's just not clear to me how this specific order fits into the grant scheme and/or whether its independently notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere, perhaps as Jclemens suggests. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A Google Maps search shows that the "monastery" of this organization is a (small, suburban) private home. With no independent sources, this fails WP:V and WP:N. The COHC Web site admits that it is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, so merger to Cistercian Order, which is specifically about the RC order, is inappropriate. Deor (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe a merge would be confusing and inappropriate for the same reason. --Boston (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete fails general notability guideline. ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 19 April 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.