Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecclesia Gnostica


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ecclesia Gnostica

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

Incomplete nomination by who states on the article's talk page: Paucity or non-existence of third party sources, despite international scope there are too few members. meco (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC) FIXED: Nine third party sources have been added one was deleted that could be re-added and there are more that were not needed to refer to content. I will provide them if 10 sources are not sufficient. Article has been streamlined. Metagignosko (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would like to see some better sources. Anyone? Bearian (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How many members does this organization need to fulfill meco's personal criteria? Given numerous published works by the head of the organization, its 50+ year history and its immediate membership of a thousand people, how is this not noteworthy?  Why are all the articles on contemporary Gnosticism being systematically deleted?  What if all the articles on, say, Rastafarianism were flagged for deletion over a 48 hour period?  What the hell is going on? - Jordan Stratford  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.155.157 (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly a large seam of articles without at least 2 cites from sources that meet WP:RS has been stumbled onto by editors who like deleting things, and so they’ve gone off on a bit of a spree? That seems to be the way it usually works. The solution, as ever, is to add sources. If you feel sources can be found but need help doing so you could always apply the rescue tag to those articles. Artw (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW I'm not seeing anything else gnostic related up at AfD at a quick glance - what other articles are you referring to? Artw (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gnosticism_in_modern_times Apostolic Johannite Church just got deleted yesterday.  Alexandrian Gnostic Church was up, but changed to a cleanup tag. Father.rassbach (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gnosticism in modern times doesn't seem to properly listed. Artw (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just did it. Artw (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep A Google News search turns up some coverage that makes this borderline notable: . The article could use a good rewrite, too. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sources available both from Google News and Books. I'm working them into the article right now. -- Shunpiker (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Merge to Stephan A. Hoeller. Many of the references, upon closer inspection, refer to separate organization such as the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica and Rosamunde Miller's Ecclesia Gnostica Mysteriorum. --Shunpiker (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY - much improved. SUNY Press is independent, verifiable. Bearian (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Much improved.  Father.rassbach (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems solid and verifiable to me Jordanstratford (talk) 00:31, 25 March 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.