Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brotherhood of Saint Gregory


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 07:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Saint Gregory

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Ad.minster (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This article or section has multiple issues.
 * This article does not meet the general notability guideline,the article is likely to be merged or deleted. (March 2009)
 * This article needs additional citations for verification. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
 * A major contributor to this article has a conflict of interest with its subject.
 * Oppose and place stub template on it. rdunn  PLIB  11:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the topic is not notable, nor are there any neutral sources on it. Ad.minster (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the above !vote calling for the deletion is from the nominator him/herself. TJRC (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and place stub template on it. -- Secisek (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Multiple issues" and "needs additional citations" are of course not criteria for deletion. It is unclear whether COI is one or not (I think not), but regardless, the fellow he identifies with the COI is me, and I have not been a major contributor to the article, nor did I create it.  That leaves the notability question.  Here are some references:
 * By a diocesan news source, about religious orders in general, with specific mention of BSG.
 * A brief bit from a diocesan news source.
 * A much longer article from a diocesan news source about the community.
 * An article from a secular news source about one ministry of one brother, with brief mention of the community
 * Similar tothe preceding
 * A lengthy article from the New York Times about a ministry of the community
 * An brief article from a diocesan news source about the community and a local connection
 * ] Obituary from the New York Times about a brother who had been a White House official
 * An article from a diocesan news sources about a ministry of the community
 * An academic paper about skullcaps which mentions the community (!)
 * That's a quick web search's results. There are other references in media which are not indexed on the web.  Tb (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three further mentions:
 * "Yearbook of orders fine for Britain, but lacking US info", Episcopal Life 10:1 (January 1999), 29.
 * "What Religious Life is Facing", The Living Church, March 1, 1992.
 * Changing Habits, award-winning documentary film produced by Sara Needham (,, , , ...)
 * Tb (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: listed at Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 3 and formatted this entry. No vote.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 13:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: restored the article text as of July 31, 2008 (last edit before the recent argument about the page), and then added back the references and tags that were recently added. This results in a clearer article, and clarifies that the artcle also has long had a stub template, as rdunn had suggested.  Tb (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I am myself not yet certain about notability, but I take note that the nominator removed sources and substantialcontent from the article before nominating it for deletion. This is a usually reliable indication that the nomination is not in good faith, and that there is either animus or COI involved.  It is obvious that the author one or more contributors to the article has COI as well. We judge the article, though and do not delete because of COI on the author's contributor's  part, or keep because of improper behavior on the other.  The additional references mentioned above should now be added to the article. The author left me a message that he feared it would violate 3RR, but it will not in this case.  DGG (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't identify me as "the author". I did not write the article, and I have not played a significant role in its history, as I noted in its talk page.  The original author was User:The Wednesday Island, who is unknown to me and has not been active for some time.  The only people with a possible COI to the article are me and User:Brkarekinm, both of whom only made minor edits.  Tb (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarity is always better than oblique reference. So here are all the edits (before yesterday) by anyone that would have a potential COI:, , , , , .  My previous count was inaccurate, for which I apologize.  I would suggest that looking at these shows that they are all minor and demonstrate no POV problems or bias, nor do they come close to being the major part of the article.  Tb (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course adding more references would be a good thing, but in light of the possible POV/COI concerns, I would prefer someone else make a reasonable selection. I think I should not be the one to do it.  I've already had more influence on the article than I think is proper today. :)  Tb (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I adjusted my comment about author: i meant "any contributor."DGG (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly notable as discussed above, and that's the only valid claim put forward in favor of its deletion; COI and a call for additional sources are not good grounds for deletion. "multiple issues" is not an independent ground of anything. TJRC (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Just needs expansion, that's all.  shirulashem     (talk)   20:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no claim of notability in the article, and non-found in a google search. Untick (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused.  returns 2,290 hits for me, and  returns 5,960.  So I'm assuming you didn't mean that you couldn't find BSG in a google search.  If you mean that you couldn't find notability, I just listed about a dozen sources, including an article in the New York Times and an award-winning documentary film.  I'm not sure what you mean about a "claim of notability" in the article; that is a speedy-deletion condition sometimes, but that's not relevant here.  Even China doesn't have a "claim of notability".  Still, it's easily cured: . Is that sufficient to answer your objection? Tb (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you mention the article on China (which, by the way, includes numerous claims of notability throughout), because it has nothing whatsoever to do with your little group that was formed in 1969. The sources you referenced have only a trivial reference to the group, and I do not know what you are referring to when you say "an award-winning documentary film". Has this group been the subject of a documentary (not just a trivial mentioned within the film)? And if so, where is the reference as I could not locate it within your list? Untick (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant only that China never says, "oh, and here's why China is famous" in any particular sentence. Never mind, it was a silly point anyhow.  The award-winning documentary film is Changing Habits; if you'll follow the links above you can see mention of it.  The film itself is about a half-hour in length, and details the nature of the community and one brother.  The article in the NY Diocesan newspaper which I referenced above is specifically about the community, in an issue which featured one column about BSG and one about OSH, both of importance to New York.  The article in the NY Times about Fessenden House is about a ministry created and staffed by brothers in the name of the community, which is itself mentioned in the article.  Likewise, the article in the Living Church from 1992 is mostly about BSG.  Tb (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Long discussions in VfD's are tedious, so I won't say more on this thread unless requseted, except to add that your statements are unpersuasive. That you don't know what I am referring to when I say "an award-winning documentary film" suggests you did not read my list of references very carefully, where you'll find above "Changing Habits, award-winning documentary film produced by Sara Needham".  I hope you were not similarly casual in your review of the other sources I listed, and I'm impressed that you were able to get a seventeen-year-old copy of The Living Church and a ten-year-old copy of Episcopal Life so quickly.  Tb (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject of the documentary film "Changing Habits" is Brother Karekin Madteos, not the BSG. None of the references listed for this documentary even mentions the Brotherhood of Saint Gregory by name. By the criteria for general notability, Brother Karekin Madteos is notable, so perhaps you might put your attention to create an article with him as the subject. The NY Diocesan newspaper is not independent, and the NY Times article about Fessenden House might allow you to reasonable argue that Fessenden House is notable, but it does not give notability to BSG. Untick (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I already have to break my promise. Sigh.  Have you seen Changing Habits?  It is not the press report about the documentary which is evidence of notability, it is the film itself, which, as I note, spends about half its energy talking about the community and its life.  Your judgment is your own, but it is important that your judgment be based on the facts, which it is clear you are not quite cognizant of.  Tb (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts in the article must be verifiable; that means that you must be able to point to references that support your claims. If the film is about the BSG, then find a verifiable reference that says that. Your claims are not verified by the references. Sorry. Untick (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point that the film itself is the verifiable reference. Sorry.  The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that you are missing the point that the claim that BSG is the subject of the documentary film is not supported by the references. A non-referenced claim is a non-verifiable claim, and should be deleted. Find me a review of the documentary stating that the subject of the documentary is BSG and I will change my vote to keep. Untick (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is a review of the documentary a valid reference for you, and yet the documentary itself is somehow not? Is there a Wikipedia policy that I haven't run into that says that films can never be valid references in a way which web and printed documents can, or are you making this up? The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is tedious. If the notability of this little 40 person group, that was formed in 1969, is totally dependent on a non-notable documentary short that does not itself claim to be a documentary of the little 40 man group, then I am very confident that this group is not notable. Untick (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are changing your arguments. Do you then concede that a documentary, and not necessarily a review of a documentary, is a valid reference?  And you are fighting a straw man.  Nobody has said that the notability of the BSG is "totally dependent" on this film.  A host of references have been provided.  I am arguing with you because of your illogical insistence on a secondary over a primary source. The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC) (who has nothing to do with the BSG, now or in the past)
 * See Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Untick (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the verifiability rules. There is nothing in them that makes a documentary inherently less of a reliable source than a review of that documentary. The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that User:Untick only counts something he can find in a three minute google search as a source. He posted here  only four minutes aften his previous edit  and in those four minutes he was able to examine five thousand google hits, two articles in old non-google-indexed publications, and a documentary film.  Or rather, I suspect he hadn't, and yet he still felt confident in saying that no references were there.  At this point, I think it's clear that his real beef is that the group has forty members and is forty years old, and he thinks that small groups are not notable.  (He's now derisevly said "this little 40-person group" or words to that effect several times.)  What is the point?  His judgment is not based upon an actual examination of the sources, and he's not willing to actually check out the references himself if it requires anything other than clicking a mouse.  That's not sufficient.  Oh, and the criteria explicitly say that reliable sources include "published works in all forms and media".  And, let's not be confused, Changing Habits is a secondary source; the primary source was the interviews and such which were edited into the film. Tb (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment User:Untick, because Wikipedia is an Internet resource, there is a clear tendency to use online references as sources. However, that is in no way a requirement. The fact that a particular reference is not online does not make it non-verifiable.  Many articles use offline verifiable sources, such as (gasp) paper books and, yes, even documentary films. They're certainly legitimate and their use is appropriate. TJRC (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that a documentary can be used as a reference, but it must be verifiable. So far all that has been presented is the unverified opinion, put forward by Tb, that the subject of the documentary film is BSG. His unverified opinion is contrary to the verifiable references posted by Tb himself) which state that the subject of the film is a man named Karekin Madteos, and not the Brotherhood of Saint Gregory (which group is not even mentioned in the posted references). Untick (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Perhaps you are determined to.  It's already clear that you did not bother to check the google search you described.  You didn't bother to read the list of sources to even notice mention of a documentary film before you posted that you didn't know what I was referring to in mentioning it again.  Now you are saying that it's not enough to provide a source, proponents of notability must also provide a source that proves that the sources say what ones says it says.  How far back does that go?  A source for the source?  A source for the source for the source?  At what point do you get off your duff and bother checking something, rather than repeating ad nauseum that "it isn't proven" because the proof must be proven, and the proof of the proof must be proven, and the proof of the proof of the proof.  What it amounts to is that you do not regard a documentary film as a source, unless you also have a review of the film.  Well, that's contary to policy.  We now have you three times applying standards contrary to policy: 1) you think that the size or age of the group is relevant, 2) you think that a documentary film is not a source on its own, 3) you think that your failure to find references after a four-minute perusal of five thousand google hits is sufficient.  Feh. Tb (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I agree that a documentary can be used as a reference, but it must be verifiable." It is verifiable.  You can buy a copy of a book; you can buy a copy of the documentary.  You can borrow a book; you can borrow (or rent) the documentary; or catch it if it's aired on television.  I'm starting to agree with Tb. I'm trying to WP:AGF here, but it certainly it seems like you're pretending not to understand this and are straining to miss the point. TJRC (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the nomination reads like a maintenance template, not a deletion argument: lack of notability is the only deletion reason advanced, and notability is now adequately established. JohnCD (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep i'm convinced. These brothers exist (and that level of religious devotion) speaks for itself.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Seems to scrape by the notability standard, bad faith nom. Glass  Cobra  23:13, 5 April 2009 (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.