Talk:Pepe Remey

Outline
this page has been recently created, and is currently taking form with only an opening statement and outline. Outline will be filled-in upon completion of sourcing in the coming days. User:Jeffmichaud 11/30/05

Speedy Delete
This article needs cleanup, but I am not sure it qualifies for Speedy.--Adam 23:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It was just created. I noted that I created an outline an will adding to it. It is a biography of a central figure of the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant and I'm gathering more information about him which will be uploaded tonight. User:Jeffmichaud

redirect
The 'background' section remained unreferenced and tagged for 4 months with no contributions, and the remaining is an introduction, the 'Guardianship dispute', and 'contributions'. The Guardianship dispute being the majority of the article, this seems like a POV fork. The remainder about Pepe is, "Pepe contributed efforts focused on validating his father's claim of being the Guardian after Shoghi Effendi, and not a Covenant-breaker as most Bahá'ís consider him. Pepe contributed personal and historical information pertaining to his father's life and role."

"Sources for Pepe’s contributions are further documented by Francis C. Spataro in Charles Mason Remey and the Bahá'í Faith (2003), and other general books about Bahá'í history such as The Bábí and Bahá'í Religions: An Annotated Bibliography (2005-6) by Denis MacEoin."

I redirected the page to Bahá'í divisions. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  01:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a bit extreme to redirect an article that survived a deletion request without discussion, I think.


 * Agreed, lack of references on his background are a serious deficiency. What's a biography without sourced material on the subject? Knowledgable editors have had four months to fill in the gaps. That's more than enough time.


 * Also agreed the Guardianship dispute section is most definitely out-of-place. The article itself makes it clear that Pepe apparently couldn't care less about Jensen — much less Chase. Does this reproduce material from the BUPC article? If not, it should get moved to it.


 * The remaining material, what little there is, is sourced and did survive a speedy delete discussion, even though that discussion was laced with misinformation. Pepe Remey was never the leader of any religious group. Nor is it at all clear that his contributions had effect on more than a dozen people. If the article really is WP:NN, which I think it is, then we should follow procedure and so nominate it and defend the argument. This redirect is unilateral. MARussellPESE (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be more than happy to go along with an AFD to redirect. The conversation was misinformed on the last AFD. Previously there was a lot more ambiguity about the size of Jensen Baha'is and they are the only reason Pepe has notability. Also since then I've learned about POV forks, and if I were to remove the forking from this article it would have 2 paragraphs remaining. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  18:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)