Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Watchers

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Watchers[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Only one source (a Google Site - user generated), cannot find any other sources mentioning the subject. Remagoxer (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a poor article, but that in the French WP is much fuller. Unfortunately the numbers involved in this modern Protestant monastic order are not clear, so that it is not possible for me to judge its significance. However the French article has 36 footnote references and a list of 10 books though some of these are about the founder. Until the French WP decides to delete thism the English one should keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources including books listed at the French wikipedia article here which shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of the fr.wiki sources look a little bit close to the subject to me, but overall there is enough in RIS to be confident that the topic is notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2021 (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.