Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First United Church of Cthulhu

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 delete. I tried to convince myself that WP:ATD could be used to justify a merge, despite the nose count favoring delete, but with two of the merge supporters being WP:SPAs, I can't see a way to do that. So, sending this off to live with the old ones. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First United Church of Cthulhu

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

Does not appear to be a notable organization, religious or otherwise. The only hit in a reliable source I could find was a passing mention in an article about a Phoenix-based comic convention, while the other hits online have more to do with Lovecraft's mythos than this specific organization. Interesting group, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability in the article; no sources found. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "Internet homes" of the church appear to be Blogspot and Reddit.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture Bare mention at [1] means it's verifiable, here it's called a publishing house rather than a religious organization. Not too much heartburn from me if it is deleted, but there's at least a reasonable place to merge. I'd be OK with saying that it's inherently self-promoting and not suitable for merge. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. --Lockley (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture . It is worth noting that Flying_Spaghetti_Monster has its own page, and is a 'popular culture church', but obviously has many more primary sources discussing it. Vonotterskull (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture There are numerous occult and neo-pagan churches/groups listed on List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions that consist of only a handful of members and whose only notable citations are links to their website to a couple of their local rituals. Some appearing to be inactive. The First United Church of Cthulhu is active and has over 7,500 followers worldwide. --Nil Failstorm (talk) 010:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.152.0.16 (talk) [reply]
Merge to Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, or, if sources are added and the article has notability, Keep. OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merger. Utterly non-notable; at least make people put a little popular into popular culture. 64 google hits, most WP-related. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not evidence of notability: all sources seems to be things like blogs related to it or routine government filings by the org. I'm not notable just because I have a birth certificate, and this isn't notable because it filed papers of incorporation or registered as a nonprofit. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It should be noted that Nil Failstorm (talk) created the subject of this AfD and Vonotterskull's (talk) only activity so far has been in this AfD. I don't think this organization is popular enough to be merged into an article about popular culture. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2017 (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.