Talk:Brotherhood of Saint Gregory

Vote for deletion
This article does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability, nor is it written appropriately for an adult audience. Vote for deletion, per Wiki MOSDAB. Ad.minster (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Tb (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability is clearly established by numerous references in official publications of the Episcopal Church, diocesan newspapers, and occasionally in the general media. I would be happy to provide references. Tb (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Where??!! It sounds like just a couple of guys who are sharing rent. Maybe I could set up my own Wiki article on myself, too, with a couple of links to my blogs, and then people can send me money. Owing to your response, I'm adding a conflict of interest tag. Ad.minster (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC

See, , , , , , ... Tb (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All this reinforces that this is NOT notable. I can, and I have like you, listed myself on similar free listings so Google would pick up websites I have created.  By listing these here, you admit that you and your roommates are not worthy of an article on Wikipedia.  Further, since you admit to be the subject of this article, you may not edit it any longer.  Vote for deletion.  Ad.minster (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Free listings? None of these are "free listings", they are official publications of the Episcopal Church. Nor are you understanding WP:POV. Nor is this a vote for deletion; it's a mistaken speedy deletion. If you will remove the speedy deletion tag, and open a regular VFD, that would be reasonable. Tb (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, they are woefully amateurish. They aren't official anything.  Maybe you created them yourself?  Ad.minster (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Then open a proper VFD, and see whether others think that the group is notable. Tb (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent tags
Several recent tags have been added which point to the talk page, but nobody has actually mentioned anything about them here.

In order: the speedy deletion G11 tag is that this is "blatant advertising". I believe it clearly is not, and in no way has anyone described what is supposed to be an advert here.

"Multiple issues": with no issues described.

"General notability guideline": I'm happy to add references.

"Not appropriate for an encyclopedia": Nothing in the talk page explains what that means here.

"written like an advertisement": In what way?

"COI": If there is a specific worry about content, I'm happy to address it. The article is pretty neutral. The article, I hasten to add, was not written by me. The only edits I have made before today are: correcting the name of a feast of the church, conforming the name of the church to its official name (as I did on many pages at the same time), and removing the outdated word "laymen". I have, in fact, been quite careful to avoid enriching the article--though I agree completely it could well have more--precisely because I believe it might be inappropriate for me to do so.

I would appreciate discussion about any or all of these. If there is no discussion to be had, then the tags should be removed. Tb (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what "multiple" means. In fact, you name multiple, or "many," issues.  You and your roommates are hardly notable for an encyclopedia, nor are you interesting.  Further, you are the sole editor, and by conflict of interest rules, alone, the article must be deleted, just like all similar articles are every day.
 * Nice try to get yourself listed in an encyclopedia, but you aren't fooling anyone. Ad.minster (talk)

So alas, no discussion about any of them. No member of the community is a roommate of mine, by the way. Perhaps you should find out the facts before you make them up. Nor did I create the article. It was made by User:The Wednesday Island. And, as it happens, I am listed in the encyclopedia, but I didn't create that article either. Tb (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)'

comments and advice
As reviewing administrator, I consider that it meets no reason for speedy deletion. The article is on its face possibly important, as are many religious communities. The article is purely descriptive, and not promotional. it serves to provide basic information, not to attract member or solicit contributions. Whether it is actually notable by our standards is not quite clear to me. Our standards are a little artificial, and bear no relation to whether it is fundamentally important or deserving of an article. It needs 2 good references providing substantial coverage from  third party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. The material cited in the article is not really independent, and is basically just a description. A source within the group is usable for the basic facts, such as the number of members, but not to show importance. A source within the Episcopal Church more generally, can be sufficiently independent, but it has to actually discuss the group in a more substantial way/ An good article about the group from outside the Church --that would be do it.

This question will have to be judged by the community The editor objecting to the article will probably propose it for articles for deletion, and there will be 4 or 5 days to discuss it. It is unpredictable how such discussions go. My guess from experience is that if no additional sources are provided, it will probably not be kept. If better sources are found, it probably will. Groups of this sort have a mixed record of success here: those that work in the outside world do better than contemplative communities, for obvious reasons. I regret some of the comments of the editor above. Nonetheless his basic point remains valid: there are  really not fully  adequate sources. If you need further help, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. DGG (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. There isn't much trouble finding third-party sources, and I believe that I can locate some without much trouble.  Tb (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DGG! I have followed your instructions for proper deletion of this article.  Ad.minster (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
In the interests of clarity, I wish to document that I am an occasional editor of this article, and a member of the community it describes. Before this week, I had only edited the article for minor stylistic bits three times. More recently, I added a number of references in response to a VfD discussion, and a paragraph indicating something of the notability of the community with more references. I hope that any edits I make are clearly not pushing an impermissible POV. Any editors with concerns about any edit I have made are requested to please identify the concern they have. It is my intention to limit my edits here as much as possible, as I have done in the past. Because my recent edits were more extensive, I thought this clarification was in order. Tb (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430212727/http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/jun/21/chattanooga-doctor-utc-nursing-students-widen-foot/ to http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/jun/21/chattanooga-doctor-utc-nursing-students-widen-foot/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928000326/http://www.bsg4.org/ to http://www.bsg4.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)