Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Board Certified Chaplain


 * 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   delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Board Certified Chaplain

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject of this article seems to fail to meet WP notability requirements. In addition, while there is some local news coverage of individuals who have this credential, this may not satisfy the requirement that coverage be "Independent of the subject." This appears to be one membership level of the Association of Professional Chaplains (which is a professional organization whose WP article is only a redirect at this point) as described here. If the organization ever gets its own article, discussion of this credential is probably appropriate in that article per WP:NNC. But from what I have gathered, the credential itself is not notable enough to justify its own article. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the article has been an orphan for a year. Novaseminary (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There seems to be no basis for retaining this article. It fails the general notability guideline. --Bejnar (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per the fact that it was relisted twice and nobody cared. Oh yeah, and the WP:GNG fail. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source. N2e (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to chaplain. The source should be fine for this information in that article. There does not seem to be anything special about a board certified chaplain besides the certification. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A merge and redirect is normally the type of solution I appreciate, but this time I don't think it would be best. My concern with redirecting this to chaplain is that it might run afoul of WP:RFD #2.  Since Board Certified Chaplain is apparently an actual membership level (if not a notable title or credential) of an actual group, this might lead to confusion (if only minor confusion) if it points to a more general article. Not all, or even many (as evidenced by the lack of news coverage), chaplains apparently use this title. The potential for minor confusion is not outweighed by any real good or conveniece, though. I would not expect anybody searching for Board Certified Chaplain who fails to find it to be satisfied with the chaplain article, which they could then easly find anyway. Further, it is not clear that this credential is significant enough to be mentioned in the main chaplain article. As I mentioned in the nomination, I think this subject is probably appropriate for inclusion in the article about the group that created this membership level. (I assume they are notable and verifiable enough for an article, but I'm not sure of that.) That would be a natural target to redirect this article. But that group does not have its own article; its article name merely redirects to Hospice chaplain -- which might not be the best article to redirect the group's name to, but that is a different problem. So, since there is no actual stand-alone article for Association of Professional Chaplains which would be the only clearly appropriate larger article to redirect to, I would delete Board Certified Chaplain. Novaseminary (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reasoning. I have no idea how important the Association of Professional Chaplains is. If it seems they are reasonably recognized in the world of chaplains then they could have a section in chaplain mentioning the certification. There doesn't seem to me to be much point in having two articles, one on the organization and one on the certification. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.