Deletion of Church of Euthanasia (2nd nomination)

Comment: Though the organization is apparently not as active now it was clearly notable in its time. I don't need to repost the research already listed above which shows in-depth coverage, and it seems like this is a good case of |Notability is not temporary. Though it may indeed be a "Hoaxish shock-value website 'church.'" it appears to be a notable one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: This AfD is attracting an awful lot of s. Typically suggests . May be worth noting {{u|Victimofleisure}} is also now doing some on-wiki canvassing (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NiTenIchiRyu&diff=684027887&oldid=684026567 here). I happen to agree with the outcome the SPAs seem to seek, but this is always a bad sign. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:CANVASSING)

Comment: Remember to |assume good faith and rest assured that my "agenda" (what little of it there is) is purely policy driven. In fact, I'm very much an inclusionist when a topic can be shown to cross the basic thresholds of verifiability and notability. This is an encyclopedia, not a freshman orientation guide for Boston college students nor is it a way to publicize upcoming documentaries. I don't care when the coverage is from, just that it's in-depth about the subject and from reliable third-party sources. Also, the article must be factual. If this is an art project, it needs to be called an art project
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: Yikes. A heads up would-be and current participants: a flood of people who have made almost no edits to Wikipedia other than to opine in a discussion like this is typically taken as a sign of |canvassing and tends to give experienced editors the impression that people must be canvassing because the article would not be kept if left to others to apply Wikipedia's guidelines (see also ). As it happens, I agree it should be kept, but a word of advice: unless you're providing new sources that meet standards presented at , you're not doing your position any favors simply by jumping in. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS||WP:SPA||WP:RS)

Comment: Passes . Chris Korda does not appear to be independently notable, so I would support merging the relevant parts of his article into this one and redirecting here. I see several sources are linked above. I'll add to those (although it's likely I'll miss duplicates): http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/2190935/internet-sites-may-encourage-suicide article in the British Medical Journal, http://www.newsweek.com/point-click-and-die-138301 Newsweek, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-103078036.html Knight Ridder/Tribune (only mentioned by name once, but the whole article is about the website), http://liveactionnews.org/anti-humanist-group-church-euthanasia-abortion-sacrament/ Live Action News, http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/02063812.htm The Phoenix, http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/bet-stash-youth-asia-article-1.812558 New York Daily News, http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/4.11/scans.html Wired... They look to keep track of a bunch of their press, too, so for a couple English-language sources that I don't see other reliable links for, http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/press/nypost5.html NY Post, http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/press/bostonmag2.html Boston Magazine, http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/press/phoenix2.html another from The Phoenix, http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/press/bostonmag1.html another from Boston Magazine, http://www.indiatimes.com/news/weird/13-religions-from-around-the-world-that-are-just-too-weird-to-be-mainstream-230890.html India Times, http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/02/church-of-euthanasia-calls-abortion-a-religious-sacrament/ LifeNews... &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)