Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepha

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 deleted --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kepha[edit]

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

Non-notable small organization with less than five local chapters according to its website. Informations about the number of members were not obtainable. jergen (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted & redirect. Redirect was in place to a source section about the group. The article is unsourced thus not proving notability. Spshu (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how a redirect from a clearly non-notable topic fits in WP:REDIR#Purposes of redirects. A simple deletion without any additional measures should suffice. --jergen (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- Looks NN to me: even its website is a deadlink. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a lot of false positive hits from a Michigan service organization, a venture capital firm, a graphics consulting company. In addition to their defunct website, there are a handful of mentions (including some substantial coverage), but on sites that are not independent, not reliable, or both (the various "Brotherhood of the Iron Will" essays are written by the Kepha founder and widely republished). On the other hand, this article, from an EWTN publication, might serve (its information suggests it may be reliable for internal Catholic information). But that leaves us in need of a second source. Google suggests there's a mention of Kepha in this book, but it is apparently no longer available (at all!) through Google Books. What little I can see looked promising -- but the author of that book is the same as the author of the New Catholic Register article. Even if the book's treatment is substantive, there are not two independent sources here. And try as I might, I just cannot scrape up a candidate. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine coverage of routine org. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2014 (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.