Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tau Malachi (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   delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Tau Malachi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced; hagiographical; fails to establish notability of either Malachi or his church. Survived previous AfD based on apparent potential for improvement, but then didn't improve. Neon Merlin  06:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Speedy delete - there are no references in this Biographical article about a living person, and none have been forthcoming since the last AfD. He is not a leader of a notable church, and while he might be a "holy man", that by itself does not confer notability.  I can find exactly zero citations in Google news] or in non-self-published books, that is, no reliable sources about this "mystic".  I point out that even some sources call him an "elder" in quotes, see Google Books search, as if in denial of his notability.  (In other words, he claims to be marginally famous although he is not even that famous.)  Also, this is a borderline copyvio of this site, and until that is fixed, I'll argue for speedy deletion under WP:COPYVIO. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, if you look back beyond the last month, as you can do by clicking on the "news" link in the "find sources" links at the top of this discussion, you can see that there are some mentions found by Google News. I'm not sure, however, that they are are enough to show notability. For anyone claiming to be a "Gnostic bishop" it would be helpful to see some sources dating from before the publication of The Da Vinci Code, as nearly everyone describing themselves as such is a really a Dan Brown-bandwagonist trying to sell books about mumbo-jumbo rather than a serious religious figure. I note that this subject's books with ISBNs were published in 2004, 2005 and 2006, after The Da Vinci Code's publication in 2003. A strange coincidence, given that he was supposedly the "lineage-holder" since 1983. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.