Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confraternity of Catholic Saints


 * 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. Notability and NPOV have been satisfied. Most of the concerns on the wording and material that should not be included are not issues for WP:AFD. These issues should instead be taken directly to WP:EDIT. JERRY talk contribs 04:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Confraternity of Catholic Saints

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete vanity article by/about nn organisation. The article has many, many references, all of which appear to be self published. Mayalld (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: it does not seem to have any claim to notability, nor independent sources pointing to it (and what does the external link to the Vatican mean?). Goochelaar (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this article about a non-notable organization. Springnuts (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Kannie | talk 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have found a reference from an independent organization that discusses the Confraternity. This is from Croatia. I disagree for the deletion.--Sirrodz (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — Sirrodz (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Still I stand to my word of not deleting this article because there are now references from independent organization of its recognition and one thing more the websites used are not self published or created.--Sirrodz (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Sirrodz (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If there exist independent, realiable sources, please insert them. As the article stands now, the references are of the kind "The Confraternity of Catholic Saints Official Website Homepage" which, you will agree, look very much "self published or created" by the Confraternity of Catholic Saints. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already found resources that talks about the Confraternity. About its recognition in Croatia. But the text is in Croatian and I have a hard time translating it. I have found a website named The Croatian World Network and I have found a article there, telling the pilgrimage of the Director through images with captions that cannot be seen in the website of the CCS. Yes many of the references where from their website because these are the informations about their Confraternity. And there is no best reference about their Confraternity except their own. But as I have said I have already found and put some citations from other independent references. Thank you for your comments. At least I am learning very much.--Sirrodz (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep The article as it stands today seems meticulously researched and referenced and is about an organisation with enough presence in the Phillipunes to be notable. I have some concerns about NPOV though.Riversider2008 (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All entries in the article were from references and some informations were translated to what I read. And I did not put any opinions on all the entries. It is basically in a neutral point of view.--Sirrodz (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My NPOV concerns relate to the use of terminology that is prevalent in the Roman Catholic church, but which are not used or understood in the same way by non-Roman Catholics. An example might be referring to the Pope as 'The Holy Father' rather than merely 'The Catholic Pope' (This is similar to the way that Moslems refer to Mohammed as 'The Prophet' (pbuh), while people belonging to other religions might object to this. pointing to the existence of other prophets.) Other NPOV questions about the article might be 'what does 'promoting holiness' actually mean in this context? Perhaps 'promoting spiritual awareness and practice in line with the doctrines of the RC Church' might be a better way of putting this. None of these NPOV objections would be strong enough to justify deletion of the whole article though.Riversider2008 (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. Honestly, I am a Roman Catholic. But the case is those lines you have mentioned are from their website. And I think it is unethical for me to just change it when I know that I am only copying in their website. Well, let us see. I will work more to improve the article. Thank you for that.--Sirrodz (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a problem here. Wikipedia is not a backup of personal pages of people and association: it is an encylopedia, so we are not bound to exactly quote them, especially when their use of words is not universally acknowledged. To offer a single example, in the very first sentence the article says that CCS is devoted to "promoting Holiness through the lives and works of the Saints". But what does "Holiness" mean? It is not a universally defined term (as, say, hypotenuse or London): each religion or ethic has its own concept of holiness, if any. So in a non-confessional encyclopedia we cannot use words in the sense in which a particular subset of humanity uses them. On the other hand, I still believe that the subject of the article is non-notable and I still cannot see multiple, reliable, independent sources. Goochelaar (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Then I understand now. So I will edit it to make it better.--Sirrodz (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the current version seems adequate. By the way, I do not completely agree that there is a NPOV problem with of the wording. For the general examples used, for an Islamic subject "The Prophet" is clear & NPOV; indeed to insist on saying the Muslim Prophet would be against NPOV, implying "the person whom the Muslims for some reason seem to consider the Prophet."  (& even in islam, there are other prophets The term by itself in English when  capitalized means Mohammed unless the context is otherwise (and similarly for the Holy Father). For that matter, there's more than one London; but we know which London we mean, unless specified otherwise.  For the particular article, Saints is perfectly clear also in this context. "Holiness" would not normally be capitalized in a non-denominational context, so while it is clear what is meant, considering the title of the article, the style in general should be a little less parochial. DGG (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "The person whom Moslems regard as The Prophet" I feel IS a very NPOV way of describing the status of Mohammed. Most non-moslems do not regard Mohammed as THE or even A prophet, so describing him as such cannot be NPOV, any more than describing Christ as 'The Saviour of the World and the Son of God' can be NPOV. (In this case NPOV would be "The man Christians regard as Saviour of the world and Son Of God". NPOV does not require us to repeat the claims that Religions make about their objects of worship or leading figures uncritically. If it did, it would lead us into all sorts of difficulties. For example, there exists a whole section of Christianity, which at it's most extreme, regards the practice of Catholicism as idolatry and has even claimed that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. To describe the Pope as 'His Holiness' would be deeply disrespectful to Christians with this belief. The term 'The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church' avoids this neatly and is NPOV. Similarly the use of the term 'promoting holiness' in this article could easily be disputed, my formulation 'promoting spiritual awareness and practice in line with the doctrines of the RC Church' avoids this and maintains NPOV. Riversider2008 (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the above suggestion would introduce weasel words and unnecessary complication into every article on religion. It is obvious that an article about Roman Catholics describes Catholics. Describing Christ as the Saviour without qualification in an article about christ is indeed not correct; qualifying every mention of the Saviour in articles about Christian institutions is absurd. DGG (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Riversider2008 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * delete now my view has changed to one of delete. Many irrelevant extras have subsequently been added to this article. This is no longer an article about the CCS, but about many other things besides, which should be listed separately. The original article is a bit like a 'trojan horse' which has been used to smuggle in many other things which are not directly relevant to the subject heading. get it deleted.
 * Still, Keep the article because as I can see it all things that where put in the article where relevant to to it. All additional texts were needed so that the concept of the CCS can be fully understand by readers.--Sirrodz (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2008 (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.