Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Israel

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. Rlendog (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Israel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable org. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do think that there is more than enough currently to establish notability per WP:ORG. (Disclosure: I have been involved in editing the article in the past.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources provided to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Poorly referenced splinter of splinter branch. A couple dozen squabbling religious extremists? Not encyclopedic.Edison (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may just be a couple of dozen people (actually I think it's more than that), but if there has been a substantial amount of coverage about the group, then it doesn't matter how small it is number-wise. I think there's been more than enough coverage of the group, especially since 2003 when it was discovered that Eric Rudolph's mom had taken him to the church for a period of time, and there were questions as to whether the church's teachings inspired the Olympic Park bombing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Christian Identity. (Changed from Delete). Gordon Melton has some coverage in his all-inclusive book of cults, which helps as a reliable source. The USA Today article helps satisfy the WP:ORG requirement of "nonlocal" coverage. Of lesser importance are cites to the local paper of Nevada, Missouri (population 8300) and the paper of a town a bit farther away, Joplin, Missouri, population 50,000. A "gaymangate.com" site has a bare URL link which is broken and should be removed or linked to a historic snapshot, such as Internet archive, Jan 2011 is that version is what the reference is supposed to be. This splinter group could be adequately covered in a few sentences at the main article Christian Identity. The coverage is not of the extent and quality that some here claim. Several references are listed at the end of the article , but without the inline citations expected in an article largely about a controversial living person such as this movement's leader. Edison (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is more than enough source material to establish notability, and could we please stop throwing around this prejudicial, super-pov term "splinter group???" It doesn't matter who it broke off from; it doesn't matter how many people are in it; it doesn't matter how "extremist" they allegedly are (and how is that a legitimate argument in this setting for deleting this article, anyway?!); they exist, they have enough sources to establish notability--and that is enough. Keep, keep, keep. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There is reliable, verifiable, and persistent source material establishing that this denomination is notable. The article needs expansion, to be sure, (although I don't feel able to do it), but the group itself is notable. - Jorgath (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. per the reasons given above. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More is expected for a != vote to be taken seriously than just saying "notable." Edison (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.