Deletion of Great White Brotherhood

Comment: The article seems to meet , but it also needs a considerable amount of re-writing to be up to Wikipedia standards.  I recommend the editors review , and also be especially careful in applying NPOV and no original research
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OBVIOUS)

Comment: I find myself surprised to be agreeing with the nominator here, as with such a long list of references I didn't expect to actually be able to verify the claim that none of the sources are good enough.  But I can see they aren't.  In most cases, the publisher's name is directly connected to this movement.  Most of the rest aren't published at all.  The few remaining after that are apparently obscure original publications from the early 20th century.  This strikes me as parallel to : these are concepts specific to a world view found in a few written works.  There's no outside importance to this, none presented in the article, and no sources that suggest any outside importance exists, and I think that would be needed here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: I'm not a follower of this religion and have not edited the related articles prior to this AfD.  I must voice my concern that a group of articles about a significant minority religion were nominated for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion|AfD page for Master Hilarion, et al) following derogatory comments on the ringe theories/Noticeboard in a report titled ''"ringe theories/Noticeboard#Walled gardens of woo|Walled gardens of woo"''. What is ''"woo"'' intended to convey?  It reads like an insult to the believers in this religion, and to the editors who worked on the articles. There are other insults in the above linked AfD and fringe noticeboard report. Insulting characterizations of minority religious beliefs and the work of well-intentioned editors do not belong in Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:F||WP:F)