Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niscience (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. I have given little weight to the two opinions from single purpose accounts and while the keep supporters think it only just meets the notability guideline, I can't see a consensus for deletion here. Davewild (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Niscience
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This organization is not “notable” by Wikipedia standards and therefore should not be represented in Wikipedia. The organization has not received significant coverage from “multiple reliable sources” independent of the organization. In the absence of such documentation the article does not accurately represent the purpose, activities, or history of the organization. Sattviclight (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * delete nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Reluctantly Keep -- It seems to be a small syncretism between Christianity and New Age, though rather older than that. It is not a hoax as is clear from the LA Times article; and it has been going some 60 years.  The question is how notable.  My assessment on that is slight, rather than NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgillan (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)  — Rgillan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Why exactly? SwisterTwister   talk  06:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Leaning towards keep - I acknowledge there could be more sources and multiple searches found nothing definite and significant (see this and this) but at least this article is neat and sourced so this makes think keep. SwisterTwister   talk  06:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - it's badly written, but cites 1 and 2 imply it's notable. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Poorly written. Citations are outdated and limited. Impossible to give fair and unbiased representation from available sources.GGATG (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - a Google search does not find any authoritative indication of notability. The only internet-accessible references are two non-authoritative primary sources and effectively an obituary.--Rpclod (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2015 (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.