Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination)

KEEP. To carry pages about other religions and not this one would be discriminatory. It would also tend to prevent others from gaining insight into what this religion is. That would be counter to the general pursuit of knowledge that underpins Wikipedia. It is important to include this page rather than removing it.

Keep
It is difficult to imagine the real challenges Wikipedia has faced and will. Kudos to everyone involved in its success! The best reasons I have for preserving Wikipedia's Church of Reality article is applying the same standards of "notability" as stated in the AfD talk page, which will be considered as the ultimate arbiter of the CoR's fate? No one knows for sure except those who have already decided. Unlike others, I understand this is not a vote. It is also not an opinion, but evidence that if the real editors applied the same consistency to Wikipedia's "notability" requirement, it would be considered for deletion itself. In particular, two comments. "There is virtually no mention of this organisation in reliable sources; the only one I can find is the Oakland Tribune article here [2]. All other mentions appear to be in blogs and other non-reliable sources." Now consider the second "requirement" mentioned, "That was the only one in the first 100 ghits." I searched on "Wikipedia:Notability" and there was not a single mention of Wikipedia's "notability" requirement in the "first 100 ghits" other than "blogs and other non-reliable sources" save npr.org which simply reiterated the opinions of multiple editors. Overwhelmingly, the definition of "notability" isn't. In addition, many of those hits were "self-serving" or internal to Wikimedia. Again, if the same standards of no blogs, opinions or self-serving interests in the first 100 Google hits were to apply to Wikipedia's "notability" requirement, it would be forced to delete itself. There was some discussing regarding "Joe the Plumber" and how that was a "single event" which absolutely changed the election process and how it was not about the person himself and so it became to be that there is an article for "Joe the Plumber" but not the real Joe. So if even those same standards were to apply, this isn't about Marc Perkel but a dogma, an ideology, a movement, a belief which will maintain its real place in real history no matter what Wikipedia decides. Trilectual (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)