Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal Catholic Church Theosophia Synod


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @823  · 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Catholic Church Theosophia Synod

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

Article doesn't really explain what this organisation is, or what it is notable for. If you wish, examine the 16 Google hits. Abductive (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep This shows a small notability with the whole template thing, but overall, I don't think that we would miss it should this page be deleted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Certainly not the most high quality article on Wikipedia, but despite what the nom says it does explain what the organization is, just not very well, and that's not a reason to delete anyway unless there is no context at all. The sources are another matter, however and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of independent reliable sources. Overall, I think this article could be improved, but I'm not sure it ever will be without some better sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I nominate articles that have no sources, but try to make each nomination read differently than "this has no sources". Abductive (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is a reason to delete: this outfit fails of notability. From what I could piece together from the aforementioned (and desperately miniscule) 16 Google hits, this outfit was a splinter sect of a splinter sect of a splinter sect consisting of less than a half-dozen parishes, which according to a couple of the sources itself split in two and rejoined different factions of the Liberal Catholic Church.  No reliable, independent sources exist.    RGTraynor  11:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no assertion of notability, no sources cited. So far as I can tell, RGTraynor has it right, and one has to wonder: are we going to have a new article every time a new church is founded? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: unreferenced; fails WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. Can't even find enough reliably-sourced info on this group to expand Liberal Catholic Movement. Per Ardua (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sufficient sourcing to establish notability is provided. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note The page has been edited, and is now a mirror of Liberal Catholic Church. Given the utter lack of sources, perhaps we should just redirect there... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the mirroring edits, since the page should either be deleted or redirected. Per Ardua (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this unsourced, hopelessly confusing article. Delighted to see it re-created in a useful form idc.  Springnuts (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This is a very poor article. If I am right in thinking it is a very minor sect, it cannot be kept.  If it indeed has the same content as Liberal Catholic Church, the best solution will be to merge/redirect, removing the article from the related template.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think it is an unhealed split from Liberal Catholic Church. But I can't be sure; which is part of the problem.  Springnuts (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles failing WP:Verifiability must be deleted. Abductive (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article stinks. It is terribly confused and unclear. However, I must ask if anyone has any specific objection to it becoming a redirect? Then it could still help users find content they were looking for. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection here.   RGTraynor  02:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection. Per Ardua (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Might this then confuse the issue still more by implying that LCCTS is the same organisation as LCC? Which we are unsure about?  Springnuts (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly; the word "synod" often means a church council and in no way would a person know that this synod is a schism. I also point out that the article creator is aware that the article is up for deletion but has made no effort to explain it better. Abductive (talk) 19:28, 27 July 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.