Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. C. Zain

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 merge to Church of Light. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. C. Zain[edit]

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

Hi all,
This article was nominated for speedy deletion and I see merit in that speedy deletion request. It is currently sourced from

the Church of Light website
a book, "Volume XVI titled 'Stellar Anatomy' Copyright, 1947, Serial No. 197 Reprinted December, 1966 The Church of Light,Los Angeles, California"

Perhaps a review of the sources in previous version may be appropriate?
I note that article was created on 30 April 2006.

"because it's been here since 2006" is not a good reason to keep the article.
"because it's about an Occultist" is not a good reason to delete the article. Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not seeing a whole lot we can use as WP:RS either in the sense of books, newspaper or academic pieces. However given that this guy was around pre-internet, I think it is possible that more sources exist offline. I've seen a couple of works which have been cited which seem to discuss him (which I can't access, just to be clear) and he seems to have written a number of books and works which had a reasonable amount of influence at one time. So my instinct is to merge with Church of Light until someone is able to get to the offline sources which would be needed to show his individual notability (if those do indeed exist). JMWt (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Church of Light. I agree, there probably are sources, and this person seems notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the "Find sources -- Books" link above indicates, hundreds of books by other writers contain at least brief discussions of Zain, his church, and/or his influence on astrology and tarot. I went through the first few pages, and the most substantial such discussion that I found was this; other examples include [1][2][3][4]. A merge may be fine, but this topic is way outside my usual focus, and I hope that someone with a firmer grasp on the subject matter will have a look at these potential sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is a plausible search term so it should lead to the Church of Light article. The only mergable content is the primary sourced paragraph about the "21 courses of the Brotherhood of Light lessons", which can fit in the origins section. The other sourced content is already there. AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nothing actually suggesting the needed independent notability itself, seems best connected to the Church itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 1 May 2016 (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.