Deletion of Kingdom of Hightower

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:V)

Comment: This is in no way the same as the Society for Creative Anachronism; an article for which many, many |reliable sources can be found which back up the |notability of the topic.  This organization does not appear to have any of the required sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTE)

Comment: to the editors voting using single purpose IPs.  Instead of disrupting this process you could userfy this article and when it is sufficiently rewritten as per |wikipedia's policies on verification, sourcing and |notability, then take it to |deletion review.  But please do not |disrupt wikipedia to make a point
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:DRV||WP:POINT)

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS But I did quickly run through the SCA article's sources and seen enough third-party reliable sources to establish the notability of the organization. I also know that there has been plenty of press coverage that are not listed as sources to know that SCA is notable. I can't say the same for KoH. As for overturning the results of a deletion discussion, there is |deletion review. But you have to explain why the closing did not reflect consensus, there were serious procedural errors, or present new sources that would have changed the outcome of the discussion if the deletion was based on a lack of notability. But beyond that there is no "higher authority
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: The article indicates it is a fine organization working toward good purposes, but the same could be said of most local church congregations, and they are not notable in general. The article lacks references to show it has had much impact beyond its own membeership, and fails to satisfy  or . It might do so in the future, and then th article could be recreated, when and if it has multiple instances substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ORG)

Comment: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources''" - there are no seconary reliable sources for this article.  Unless it can be rewritten and verified using |reliable sources it has to go.  The Society for Creative Anachronism article has 15 refs this has 0
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: per  and .  Comparison to Society for Creative Anachronism doesn't hold: this doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards.  Article can be recreated if/when adequate sourcing and notability are available
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:V)