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. Per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Prod contested with the rationale, "It is a very small congregation only recently set up, it is unlikely that many will have heard of it." 'Nuff said. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A Google search turns up nothing by that name. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Tavix (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, its clearly not going to turn up on google search because it is a tiny congregation in north finchley run by fecking elderly Irish nuns (one of whom happens to be my aunt) that have no idea of the existence of the internet let alone the ability to set up a web page. Nuff Said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D50qhx (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a reason for deleting the article, not keeping it. You see, Wikipedia refuses to be a primary source about anything. To get Wikipedia to keep the article, you have to show the congregation's notability, and the best way to do that is to find the very kind of coverage you are here claiming as nonexistent. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shall I send you a leaflet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D50qhx (talk • contribs) 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A leaflet would be a primary source. You are probably in a better position than the rest of us to uncover reliable secondary source coverage of this congregation, and I urge you to do so in the time left before this AfD closes. I think it's safe to say that if you cannot find reliable secondary sources to justify the article's existence, then no such sources will ever be found, in which case the article will have to be deleted. Please also consider the notability standards for non-commercial organizations, particularly for local organizations, when doing your referencing. Thanks, Baileypalblue (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:V. Punkmorten (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I know this place init. We pray for the poor child ziko. I am Emilio —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC). — I am Emilio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Yeah I know this place too. Are you Emilio? Am I Massimo — Am I Massimo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Hmmm... that would explain the "no Emilio in sight" comment in the AfD nomination edit summary at Evangelical Free Church of Canada. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per D50qhx. Comments here and removing the prod clearly indicate a total lack of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The approval of the order's rule by Cardinal Murphy O'Connor should be easily traceable; the fact that nothing can be found suggests that this entire thing is a hoax, and should be speedily deleted. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost certainly a hoax, and I almost speedied it yesterday as vandalism, on the evidence that the contributor had previously entered some very problematic contributions to St. Michael's Catholic Grammar School (that I think have all been reverted). Probably I should have done so, instead of prodding it. DGG (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mild notability and has no references Ijanderson (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did what I could with the article, but I do not think it is enough. The article fails WP:V, because I could find NO sources to verify the "Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko". The bit about the Tyburn Convent has some truth to it, but even on that website I have not yet come across any mentions of "Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko". I also suspect that some of the keep comments above may be from sock accounts. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, a suspected sockpuppetry case has just been opened. I think we're about to find out what this can of worms contains. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please provide a link? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. Here it is. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I should have noticed from User_talk:Collectonian#SSP_help. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:27, 28 January 2009 (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.