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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzheado (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption

[edit]

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

No official sources confirm Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption is a legally recognized Church in the United States of America. This was a satirical joke on a TV show and has no place on a serious encyclopedia. Alvandria talk 10:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Puh-leeze. There are plenty of references in the article which confirm that the church is a real church, legally registered as a nonprofit in the state of Texas, in addition to it obviously being part of a joke. The satire does not undo the fact that the church is a real entity, accepting donations, passing them along to Doctors without borders. In addition to sources already in article, there are sources here and even tax lawyers are talking about the issue of the tax-exempt status of churches.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are RNS and TF, which isn't credible. There isn't any govermental proof it's a Church. Without confirmation, the page shouldn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvandria (talk • contribs) 13:29, August 25, 2015‎

"Govermental [sic] proof it's a Church" isn't required for notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? http://www.mediaite.com/tv/heres-how-successful-john-olivers-tax-exempt-church-has-been-so-far/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.91.194 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 August 2015‎

Speedy keep Whether the IRS recognizes it or not, more media outlets than I can count have covered what John Oliver has done. Here's WaPo, CBS News, and Forbes. This appears to be just as serious as Colbert Super PAC, and just as easily meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, an article being about a joke is not a reason to delete it. The subject here more than meets WP:GNG. If you believe a phrase in an article ("is a legally recognized church") to be inaccurate, go ahead and correct it, or discuss it on the talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely notable. Plenty of sources in article, even more talked about it, U.S. national debate ensued (at least from where I'm looking) - and more to come, I'm sure. Whether that addresses the call for deletion in regards to whether it is governmentally recognized or not, I'm not sure, but I think that reason for deletion is wrong anyway. The text may be wrong in regards to it being a legal church, but that can be fixed by noting as such, and the subject and article is in fact about the claim that it is a legal church. -- Katana (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is about something notable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to follow the general notability guidelines; looks to be about as notable as the Colbert Super Pac, which has an article dedicated to it as well. Green green greenred 19:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Should the article on Scientology have been removed before it was recognized as a church by the IRS? Of course not. The issue is notability, and OLoPE is notable. Xlation (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources. Pikolas (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Correspond to wikipedia's requirements, the sources are here, legal entity confirmed, needs to be developed but not deleted. Hypersite (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually more notable than many sects. --Article editor (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody who hasn't !voted here should probable SNOW close this. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2015 (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.