Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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. (non-admin closure) B music ian 06:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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

Not a notable organization. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is notable under WP:ORG. "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply But in this situation, this is not the case. This org is not substantially discussed by 3rd party reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note—this is not really an "individual chapter" or another organization. It is an independent organization—a schism offshoot from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, essentially. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know enough yet about the coverage of this sect to know whether its independently notable. But if for some reason it is not, its certainly notable as a part of Mormon fundamentalism, all verifiable content should be retained.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Any reliable sources should be reserved if they exist. But, this subject still is not notable, nor does it meet
WP:GNG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I think it's notable enough as an organization separate from the general Mormon fundamentalist movement. There have been some sourcing issues on the page in the past with members of the church attempting to use their own blogs and website to substantiate information, but there is enough in reliable sources even currently used in the article to justify an article, IMO. The church only has a couple of hundred members, but because of their involvement in polygamy and the construction of their pyramid temple, they have traditionally "punched above their weight" in terms of the notice they attract from media and scholars. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes
WP:NTEMP. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 03:07, 17 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.