Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomasine Church

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomasine Church

Anyone can create a website regarding their own religious views, or those of a small group with whom they are associated. Does that mean they should have a Wikipedia article? Is there any evidence this "church" has any notability, and is not just a small group that no one has heard of? 137.111.11.69 08:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone can nominate an article for deletion. Does that mean it should not be a Wikipedia article? I also would like to see some evidence for notability, such as membership statistics, but I vote Keep and Clean Up.Logophile 10:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Will form base for good article. Qaz ^(talk) 10:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Undecided at present but probably leaning towards delete unless some verified info is presented. "Thomasine Church" scores just over [100 Google hits] though a goodly number of even that modest sum are just WP and mirrors. The current article seems to avoid mentioning things like congregation or membership statitics. How many members are/were there? Where are the churches located? Has the church been referenced in any theological texts, or even mainstream publications? We need more facts, and if no facts are forthcoming, this should be deleted as unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Recently a denomination with only one Google result as proof that it evens exists was kept, and the result was a huge list. We need some church notability guidelines. -- Kjkolb 14:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• No assertion is made that this sect has any number of followers. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promulgation of religious dogma. Delete unless notability established. Pilatus 13:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, neutral, factual, verifiable. Trollderella 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't actually seem third-party verifiable from the google hits. Their "temples" are listed here but don't seem to get any hits at all. I'll change to keep if any decent evidence shows up. Kappa 18:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • An interesting find. Not only are the lack of Google hits suspicious, but I found an enormous list of Allentown churches here which makes no mention of this. Also, I'm pretty sure that "photo" is actually a demo shot from a 3D program. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete per this information. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. And yes, that "photo" is computer-generated. --Carnildo 22:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Kappa. Xoloz 15:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus, and that only source is church's own website indicates lack of neutrality and verifiability --TimPope 10:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete lack of verifiability Mozzerati 20:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's interesting to note that a church's reputation or relevance comes down to goggle hits. I also suggest that their needs to be a guidleline to what is to be recognized as to what is not beyond what the big three deem is to be recognized (Christianity/Judaism/Islam). If it were left up to them Wicca would never be listed here either. How about someone contacting this group instead of making assumptions from an artmchair point of view? Comment left by User:AnDruidh, who contributed only to two AfD discussions.
  • There is sufficient evidence that Wicca has a substantial number of followers. The burden of proof that the Thomasine Church has any is with the original editor, and WP:V is clear in that regard. Pilatus 13:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The Thomasine Church was listed on the "NACGB" (nacgb.org), "Order of the Grail" page (www.orderofthegrail.org/listing_of_gnostic_churches.htm )as well as some guys blog site (nascentgnosis.blogspot.com). Those are 3rd parties varifying that such an organization does exist. Did you write to them? BTW I am not lost on the "Pilate" and "Pope" names which call for deletion. As someone who follows Druidry I am not surprised that some are calling for this groups deletion. --AnDruidh 00:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as content unverifiable. Note: www.saintthomaschristianchurch.org redirects to www.nasranichurch.org ; one page refers to "Nasrani/Thomasine Churches" [1]. Don't know what to make of that. Rd232 ^talk 23:38, 21 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.