Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Anglican Church of America

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Given the split and that this has been subject to substantial debate (with a relist to boot), and the historical record of keeping denominations, I believe we are unable to reach a clear actionable consensus on deletion. KaisaL (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Anglican Church of America

Traditional Anglican Church of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet

WP:ORG. Appears to have only seven parishes about which I can barely find any reference. Graham (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As one can imagine, I certainly take issue with
WP:IAR
.
Regarding
WP:ORG on its own, would it not be most appropriate to cover it in a section of the article on the Continuing Anglican movement as a whole? As I see it, any denominations of note (which are not necessarily independently notable under Wikipedia's guidelines) could be covered there in an appropriate level of detail and more major denominations that are independently notable could be covered in summary style. What do you think, StAnselm (and others)? Graham (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess I mean "presumed to be notable" - as Atlantic306 says below, there are probably sources existing that are not online. As to your proposed way forward, I appreciate your willingness to compromise; I guess I'm not ready to concede that much ground yet. If all the denominations are notable, I prefer to navigate among them via templates and nav boxes. StAnselm (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
a negative should be proven
.
Regarding the possibility of covering the topic more thoroughly in the
WP:NOPAGE
states that one of the main criteria we should be looking at is "What sourcing is available now?" [italics added]. Even if the topic is notable – and I have yet to see any evidence in defence of that position be introduced – the article contains minimal information and I see no possibility for significant expansion based on the reliable sources available (i.e, none).
While I appreciate that you have a preference for how to navigate through these denominations, "If all the denominations are notable" is a pretty big "if". If there is any evidence in favour of the argument that all these denominations are notable (or even just this denomination), I would be eager to see it. Graham (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
self-published source that appears to have likely copied and pasted the information from an old version of this page on Anglicans Online. Graham (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep they used to be a larger denomination so older pre-internet sources should be extant but admittedly hard to findAtlantic306 (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article and List under "Continuing Anglican" or similar with link to the website. Although it is a convenient administrative practice for avoiding discussions, the idea that members of certain groups are intrinsically notable is highly questionable. For example, it has been claimed that all bishops of the Roman Catholic Church (and others) are ipso facto notable. However in 1517 there were 306 Catholic dioceses in what is now Italy,(Hughes, Philip. A History of the Church - Vol 3 Sheen and Ward pp. 539f) many being little more than very large parishes and it is most unlikely that most of them made any real mark at all on history. The same might also be said of many other people who have been called "bishops" in other denominations. The fundamental criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is objective notability, that is notability accredited by responsible independent and authoritative sources which in this case have not been provided so far. — Jpacobb (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  While I agree that denominations are, and historically have been, presumed to be notable, what we have here is an article where readers cannot verify the information provided.  The unsourced references to living people are BLP violations.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing discussion that is not germane to this AfD. Graham (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC) Non-germane zone corrected. Unscintillating (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unscintillating, a lack of secondary sources didn't stop you from calling for keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno County Sheriff's Office. Why would a church's website about itself not be acceptable, when you do accept a sheriff's office's website? Please uphold Wikipedia policy. Drmies (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My !vote was not "keep", but based on a policy which I named in bold, and from which I quoted verbatim.  If you will recall, I provided a similar response after your similar confusion when you were thinking that I had !voted from the guideline WP:SK.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting way to canvas, but I'd love to have @Drmies: come to the Hyder article and explain to you why restoring sources that don't actually support the material is improper. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niteshift36, I once, no, twice, tried to reason with this user--here and in this AfD. I'm obviously not being very successful at it. But that is a fun little article about Hyder; that "the Mounties occasionally pop in to say hello" doesn't support what our article claims is of course obvious, eh. Drmies (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not obvious.  All sources agree, even if without satisfactory detail, that the RCMP are active across the international border at Hyder.  The phrase that foreign police "pop in to say hello" is attributed to Ken Jennings.  Three Google book sources repeat the phrase that "the police are of the Mountie variety".  A Google book source from the University of British Columbia Press dated in 1975 calls the role an unofficial presence, but an editor in 2006 claims that Canadian judges in Stewart are paid by Alaska to handle misdemeanor cases under US law.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies We've crossed paths in several. I've noticed a trend in using the same specific (possibly newly discovered) parts of policies in the same day, even when they don't apply. Currently, he's telling me that I can't use the word "you" when talking to him about actions/edits he specifically took and cites AVOIDYOU as his reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak IARish keep. I find myself strangely in support of Anselm, though saying "yeah notable" without much evidence totally rubs me the wrong way. I'll see what more I can find. Drmies (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Graham11, StAnselm, nothing more has come to the surface, besides my guess that they changed their name because of a dispute with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America. I emailed someone who is a bishop in yet another splinter denomination of traditional Anglicans and will report back. In the meantime, I can't in good conscience argue keep, as sympathetic as I am to Anselm's "all denominations are notable". I'm still leaning toward supporting that general statement: denominations are not likely post offices or sheriff's departments, which exist all over the place because they have to; denominations are created voluntarily and play important roles in people's lives. But the problem is that the general statement suggests that every person who sets up a trailer on a county road and calls it "church" gets to have an article for their flock. This one is bigger than that, but we have only their own (terrible) website as proof; I think we need a little bit more than that. So I'll support a merge as suggested earlier by Graham. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My source has nothing to add. I guess I support a merge--even then, a merge will merely consist of just listing the name and a paragraph, with nothing more than a link to the website... Drmies (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- A small denomination, but a denomination nonetheless, one of many splinters which have split from the Episcopal Church. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: Being a denomination does not in itself establish notability. And given that it is "one of many splinters" off of the Episcopal Church, that seems to be even more reason to cover the subject in the Continuing Anglican movement article if this particular denomination does not and will never (in the foreseeable future) meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability. Graham (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm swayed by the arguments that being a denomination does not establish notability by itself. I don't see any particular reason to keep this article either for some kind of historical purposes or any other reason. Wikipedia can and should help readers, but I don't think that this is really that helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references at all ? I will reconsider if it gets properly referenced. Aoziwe (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have normally kept all denominations, and have accepted their website as sufficient documentation. Google also provides documentation for at least one of it's churches, Saint Mary's Anglican Church at Hill, and it is listed in the unofficial directory USA.churches. DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"? Surely you don't mean to suggest that their website constitutes a "reliable third-party source"…? Graham (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@DGG: Also, I just tried to find the website of St Mary's Anglican Church at Hill (which the Traditional Anglican Church of America website indicates is in Las Cruces, New Mexico) that you mentioned. I found it at stmarysathill.com but not only does the website make no reference to the Traditional Anglican Church of America, but it suggests that they're actually part of another small (but still much larger than the TACA) splinter group, the Anglican Province of America, which is separate from the TACA. Graham (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Traditional_Anglican_Church_of_America&oldid=1077951338"