Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Order of St. Luke the Physician

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 . ✗plicit 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Order of St. Luke the Physician

[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)

This article does not appear to be independantly notable and is mostly a page promoting the power of faith healing. Possible sources in further reading are either primary sources, do not mention the subject at all, or mentions are trivial. Nothing in my BEFORE was enough to convince me this would meet WP:NCORP. I didn't realize there was previously a PROD in 2008, so I'm starting this AfD now. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Medicine. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "International Order of St. Luke the Physician", "Order of St. Luke the Physician", and a number of searches including "OSL" all failed to bring up anything suggesting notability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an EpiscopalIAN, I've heard of them, but they are sort of FRINGEY. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to the Faith healing article as there are enough academic sources in the further reading section to justify that, in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in article are primary. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the further reading section shows some academic and secondary sources, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the further reading section in my nom. Are you seeing something I'm not? The more academic sources didn't seem to mention this organization at all. I'm not sure what exactly would be merged. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2023 (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.