Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compendium Traditional Catechism


 * 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. The 'keep' proponents (primarily single-purpose accounts) failed to advance any argument grounded in Wikipedia policy. No objection to restoring the article in the event that the book garners significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Compendium Traditional Catechism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have not found any reference that could prove the notability of this book. The references provided in the article itself, except for a link to the Amazon page of the product, do not cite the book at all. I've opened this AfD discussion to ascertain whether the book is notable enough to deserve an article in Wikipedia. LowLevel73(talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you obsessed with Deliting this Post?? You also Erased my prior comments!!! Why? Why are you so interested in deleting this post??--Aroniel2 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This Book is new, less than one year old. Still several Cardinals and Bishops have it, including Cardinal Burke. This book is having great success in England where conservative Anglicans are moving back to the Catholic Church. PLEASE do not listen to LowLevel 173!! He or she is just Obsesed!! This book is the Cathechism with guidance and commentary from EXTREMELY important people including Popes, Cardinals, etc, etc. --Aroniel2 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not meet notability standards outlined at Notability (books) "A book's listing at online bookstores such as Barnes & Noble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary..." Spellsgood (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see third-party resources. Searching on this is difficult since the terms in the title have been used for various publications. It does not meet notability for individual books. LaMona (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not delete. After the Synod there is a lot of confusion about the true Catholic Doctrine. The Pope is not helping with his Ambiguous comments. Cardinal Kasper is creating a lot of confusion. Cardinal Burke is helping to defend true Catholic doctrine but he is only one voice among the multiple ones. This Compendium was approved by Bishop Fernando Rifan, the only Catholic Bishop dedicated to the Extraordinary Rite and is helping a lot of confused Catholics to understand true Catholic doctrine. Deleting this book with NOT help the Catholic Chuch but will HURTH it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.56.177 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to be familiar with the purpose of Wikipedia, but in short, hurting or helping some cause or organization is irrelevant to the decision to include an article in Wikipedia. The policies for inclusion, albeit hard to quantify, are clearly spelled out in WP:NOTABILITY and other policies linked from there. Please read at least that page, and make your arguments here based on those policies. LaMona (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't find any mentions of this title either in America (Catholic magazine) or this news archive. There's nothing on Google Books either. Confabulationist (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

HERE GOOGLE BOOK: http://books.google.com.af/books?id=CZoHAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA443&dq=Traditional+Catechism+Rifan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_t5gVLuNDrGv7AbduYGgCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Traditional%20Catechism%20Rifan&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.56.177 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This book should NOT be deleted. It is a very important contribution to the understanding of Catholic teaching at a time of heightened debate and public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebuly (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete!
 * — Cjscafe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjscafe (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE. This Catechism is an oasis of sound traditional Catholic doctrine as it was always meant to be. With all the confusion going on the Church today, works like this help concerned Catholics maintain and nurture their faith, and provides the necessary apologetical tools to respond to the Kaspers and LowLevels173 bent on destroying our Faith.


 * — Edcruzwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edcruzwiki (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd like to invite all of the new editors who created an account to oppose the article's deletion to stay and contribute meaningfully to other areas of the project even after the Compendium Traditional Catechism page is inevitably deleted due to its subject's failure to satisfy either WP:BK or WP:GNG. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not delete this article/entry as it is most relevant to all Catholics as a tenet of faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoyDeValois (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - No sign that it is notable - no reference to actual work outside Amazon link. If the importance actually met the claim on both the article and here you would expect outside references. Similarity of name would suggest the article author is the book author so clear conflict of interest on the importance of the work. Also these 1 post 'keep' votes look like puppets, as does the single Amazon review. KylieTastic (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2014 (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.