Talk:Bishopric of the Forces in Great Britain

Notability
can you explain why you removed a notability tag when the criteria to do so hadn’t been met? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Criteria met, per Notability:
 * If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag. It is highly desirable, but not technically required, for you to add a list of good sources to the article or its talk page, so that other editors will know about the existence of these sources.
 * The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group.
 * Can you explain why you re-added the tag, in contravention of these instructions? Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you had provided that explanation I would not have restored the tag, you neglected to do that writing an unrelated edit summary of “frivolous.” Would you be so good as to provide a list of good sources? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a diocese. We have an article on every diocese in the world, personal prelatures, vicarates apostolic, exarchates... the latter two are lesser than this Bishopric. I eagerly invite you to visit WP:AFD with this request. Elizium23 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We don’t have any special standard for dioceses etc, see WP:NRELORG. If you "are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues” then it shouldn’t be an issue to provide them. AFD should only be used when the talk page has been exhausted and luckily for us we have an experienced editor (you) who claims to know of a whole raft of relevant sources. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have to! Elizium23 (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear though you do actually have sources? You do actually have to have them even if you don’t provide them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear though you do actually have sources? You do actually have to have them even if you don’t provide them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

, you complained on Talk:St. Joseph's Indian School yesterday about reliable sources and displayed that you prefer indepth research behind the reliability of those sources, so why are you so lenient about providing no sources on these articles? I think your stated association with the Catholic Church is creating an obvious bias. oncamera  (talk page)  10:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)