Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod; rm'ed by IP (as first and only edit) with no explanation. Article is unencyclopedic in tone, has no assertion of notability whatsoever, and does not seem to meet GNG - there are no reliable independent sources, and nothing substantiates any claims of notability made in the article (everything I have found in trying to figure this out is directly a TOPY site, and there's nothing of substance therein). As a matter of fact, despite reading the article, I cannot tell what the organization does, other than fight amongst itself. The article has been tagged since Sept 2009 for fancruft and SPS, and the org itself seems to be defunct (which the article itself can't seem to decide on either; there may therefore be soapboxing occurring as well. MSJapan (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The only argument presented for deletion that would be valid if true is a lack of reliable independent sources. Google Books, however, shows coverage in the following books: The New Encyclopedia of the Occult, The Re-enchantment of the West: Alternative Spiritualities (which also points to other sources), Disinformation: the Interviews, Allmusic Guide to Electronica (brief), Encyclopedia of American religions, Derek Jarman: a biography, Religion and anthropology: a critical introduction, The New Age Movement: Religion, Culture and Society in the Age of Postmodernity, Everything You Know About Sex is Wrong: Extremes of Human Sexuality (and Everything In-between), Technology as magic: the triumph of the irrational, Magic Power Language Symbol: A Magician's Exploration of Linguistics, and several more. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Trivial or otherwise? Many of those sources would seem to have nothing but throwaway refs to the group because they are generic reference works.  Also, Google does not care about reliability or accuracy, only existence.  I'd like to see the extent and reliability of the coverage and sourcing looked at before we assume that existence of the name in a book automatically equates to meeting the necessary GNG criteria for a keep.  In short, we've covered "multiple", but "reliable" and "independent" are still questionable. MSJapan (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There seems to be plenty of coverage in Google Books.-- K orr u ski Talk 11:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has faults as described (though note that David Keenan is a known independent music journalist and thus a reliable independent source) but that should be addressed by improving the article. The organisation itself is well known, as indicated by Michig's Google Books list. AllyD (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2010 (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.