Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomasine Church (Gnostic)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomasine Church (Gnostic)

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

From the little context provided this seems to be about a modern organisation. I can find no indication of any notability for such an organisation - see. the few Google Books hits for the phrase "Thomasine Church" refer to ancient churches. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep To avoid cultural bias, I support articles on any religious movement that can be shown to have real existence. Though all that is relevant are blog postings, there seems enough to be real I'd be much more comfortable with some 3rd party references, even in passing. DGG (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominator may be aware of this, but just to make sure...there are Gnostics today, so it's possible that such a church exists. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm pretty sure it's these guys, and not the former Syrian (or still Current but separate Syrians?), but I'm marginally convinced. DGG is probably about balance. Wily D  10:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice until and unless an independent and/or reliable source is provided. A single website is just not sufficient to meet WP:V, with all due respect to DGG's position--which I substantially share--on real religous movements. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable third party sources that establish notability. RMHED (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice due to the lack of reliable third party sources to support notability. JBsupreme (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (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.