Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooneyites


 * 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 per availability of reliable sources fulfilling the verifiability and notability requirements as well as withdrawal of the nomination by User:Slofstra in light of universal keep opinions as indicated below. Non-admin close. -- jonny - m t  03:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cooneyites

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article Cooneyites consists entirely of either 'Original research' in violation of WP:NOR or based on self-published materials WP:SPS. As such the text is simply a repository for edits both pro and con with no WP:V. There is no chance that the editors of the article will be able to rectify this issue as no reputable materials (either scholarly work) or credible historical book on the group's history exists. The group has only 200 members! Note the Patricia Roberts book is not from a credible publisher. William Trimble is a printer in Northern Ireland, not a publisher. The other references are obvious SPS. The article is skinny on references. What references exist refer to SPS web sites. Slofstra (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Google Scholar shows several hits as noted here . Google News has additional information, as shown here .  With at least two of the articles being from the New York Times and lastly good old Google with at least one additional mention from the New York Times, as shown here .  Regarding WP:OR the article is referenced, as noted on the page.  Are more cites needed, yes, but not a reason to delete.   Shoessss |  Chat  02:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep  I found references to this group at the New York Times, the meta-religion registry, cult-tracking and awareness sources, etc etc.  Certainly enough reliable third-party information to create a reasonable article from. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with Christian Conventions. It looks like the Cooneyites were a split from this group. Cooney and the Cooneyites (sounds like a band) are talked about a bit on that page.  If there's not enough to create an article here, at least merge it with that article which is much more robust. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 10:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The group does exist and there are several passing or abbreviated references to the group, as Google Scholar indicates. The references described above are one sentence passing references. No scholarly research has been done on the group; no work from a credible publisher.  Doesn't that also violate WP:NOTE? A question. Do deletion rulings consider only the potential of the topic or also look at the current article, per se. The comments above make no reference to the current article. Slofstra (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ShinmaWa, the 'cult-tracking' site does not look like a reliable source to me. It is self-published also! Can this be used as a source on wiki? I don't see this kind of tracking web site listed in WP:SOURCES. Did you read the NYT article - 400 words from 1906?  Hardly much to base an article on, is it?  One mainstream media reference from 1906?  But I'm surprised you found that much.  Slofstra (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Shoesss who indicates article is not OR. The article is a combination of OR and references to SPS. There is not a single sentence that is not one or the other, IMO. The article only has two citations, one is to a long list in Hansard including the word 'Cooneyites'; the speaker in Parliament is equating Cooneyites in importance with the religion Jedi Knights in joking about the British census. The second reference is to a SPS work.  The rest of the article is not cited; therefore it must be OR also. Shoesss, what am I missing here?Slofstra (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A compromise suggestion is to delete all NOR and SPS info in the article and the resulting stub be merged into Restorationist. If additional cited material is then added instead of the agenda-driven material currently used, then break the article out into its own topic. P.S. It may happen if someone writes a historical thesis or performs research on the group under the auspices of a recognized academic institution.  A quick perusal of the links in that article shows there are other groups which should not have their own article for similar reasons, as they are not WP:NOTE.  Keeping these topics bundled in fewer articles makes it much easier for editors such as myself who are gatekeeping in the area of new religions.  Compare to how Jehovah's Witnesses is cited and easily cited.  The difference is that the latter group is WP:NOTE; so it has been referenced in academic articles and responsible mainstream publications.  Slofstra (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors please actually read the article and also read WP:SOURCES. Do you want wiki to fill up with this kind of article because of your laxity in enforcing wiki standards. Please rigorously enforce your own standards for wiki's integrity and its appeal to legitimate scholars and writers depends on it.  My concern is that the whole area of new religions is teeming with opinionated, amateur researchers who are using the web to self-publish.  That's fine; it's called freedom of speech. But they do not know about cross-checking, avoiding libel, and academic standards.  Now this material is spilling over into wiki. This is not a small problem.  A quick perusal of articles referred to in Restorationist reveals that there are more articles like this, built purely out of web-based self published material.  If we can coalesce some of this material into fewer topics it will be easier for gate-keeping editors such as myself to work in this area.Slofstra (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahhh you are going to drag me into working on this article – aren’t you. If this article does get deleted, can the administrator or editor who closes the discussion send the article to me.  I’ll work on it in my spare time. If not deleted, I will put on my things to do list. Thanks. Shoessss |  Chat  03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am curious as to why you'd want to work on this. Plus, how would you solve the issue of no WP:SOURCES Slofstra (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well first, I believe the New York Times is a very real and verifiable source that delineates notability. Second, I admit, and most people here at Afd know, I am an in_clusionist, which means I look for reasons to keep articles rather than delete.  Finally, I find the areas of religion and philosophy fascinating.  I will look at this editing job as the opportunity to pick up another pebble of knowledge that I can put in my keep bag :-). Shoessss |  Chat  04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned about preserving the article, you need only copy and paste from the edit window for now. Then later either find someone who is running wiki software or install your own. Don't know how to do, but I know it is done.
 * The group was mentioned once in the NYT in 1906 in a brief article; that does not make the topic WP:NOTE. Slofstra (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Remove or substantiate anything that seems to be “original research” or not founded on “reliable sources”. But this article can provide the sort of information that would from a user perspective distinguish Wikipedia from just an on-line version of any other encyclopedia.  When I read reference to the Cooneyites (or the like), I don't want to have to chase around on the Web, nor to I want to lurk in the library for a few weeks. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully suggest that not everything that can be found on the Web should be placed in wiki for the sake of convenience.Slofstra (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no one has asserted or implied that everything should, I would suggest that your point is too hyperbolically expressed to be useful. If you want productive dialogue (and any chance of converting your opponents), then you are going to need to fairly capture what the opposition is saying. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I only meant that convenience is not relevant to the issue of whether the article is WP:NOT or WP:V. Whether I convert anyone is not so much an issue for me.  People are entitled to their opinion; it doesn't have to be the same as mine, but I would like to see some focus on the issue.  I do appreciate your POV.  If I follow your advice the article will be editted to a stub, so why would you recommend keep?  And I have the option to begin pruning the article, which is quite acceptable to me, but will definitely lead to edit wars, disputes, appeals to protection, and so on.  I know as I have been through this before. Unfortunately, this article is built from WP:SPS from anti-Restorationist types doing OR. Please see my challenge below. Slofstra (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What I said was plainly contrary to any notion that convenience met the verifiability requirements, or that it off-set the lack thereof; I wish that you would stop slapping at straw-men. I recommend keeping the article because, while it might be editted to a stub were my advice taken (that claim is plainly under dispute by other editors), I'm sure that the formal requirements of Wikipedia (such as they are) can be met, and the article is the sort of thing that truly benefits users, including those (such as I) who have no keen interest in the specifics of Christian hivings. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully realize that neither you or anyone are asserting convenience as a prerequisite to WP:V and I'm not trying to insult you. There is a serious issue here which you raise which is usability, which is increased by having this article, and integrity, which is decreased whenever we slacken on WP:V. We would both agree that you can't have 100% on both sides, there is a trade-off, and what's at issue here is where the line is drawn. And I very much discount 'convenience' in this case, although I am in favour of a redirect. Slofstra (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand the system here. There can be 100% on one side.  Proportional representation doesn't obtain here, and representation proportional to rhetoric certainly doesn't obtain.  The closing admin won't say “My, this fellow or lass Slofstra has written almost half the words on the page, and so we shall compromise 50-50.”  Instead, he or she will note that all but two-or-three editors said that the article should be kept, and say that consensus was for that — unless, of course, you can manage to persuade people that they should change their minds.  Misrepresenting positions (deliberately or innocently) won't help you; nor will acting as if other editors must yield to you.  I suspect that you've rendered your position unrecoverable in any event, but if you cannot succeed without a radical change in your approach. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 18:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly I do misunderstand 'the system' as the AFD process is all new to me, but not in the way you think. You misunderstood my comments, and, I fear, my intentions also as a consequence. Allow me to clarify. The percentage comments are not about the outcome of this particular AFD request. I was saying that as a wikipedia goal you can't have 100% convenience/usability or 100% integrity.  That from a practical point of view you must compromise these two ideals.  I don't think you would disagree with that as it's a rather obvious statement.  Then I characterized our respective positions without prejudice to say that I'm very strong on integrity whereas you would be stronger on usability or convenience.  Slofstra (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my personal summary below; there have been solutions suggested here short of deletion that are perfectly acceptable to me. I would hope that whoever closes this article will look at the strength of the arguments, as opposed to the number of votes.  You will always see a significant bias towards keep in part because writers are emotionally and creatively attached to their work and viewpoints. In other words, writers do not always make good editorial decisons. But I'd be quite happy with redirect and merge to Christian Conventions, which I've learned is how the Library of Congress resolved the issue.  My main concern here has been the serious and palpable issues with the sources used in this article.  In part, as a writer/ editor I'm evaluating the viability of wikipedia as to whether or not it's somewhere I'd be proud of working, and a source I would trust, or just an ideological battleground.  The policies of wikipedia would point in the former direction, but you can read for yourself that other editors, with all respect, characterize themselves as inclusionists, and think that we need to be easy on beginners (don't bite the newbies), give the article a chance, and so on. At this more general level of debate I don't claim to have all the answers but I know what my position is, and I think that the debate is an important one.  I've outlined my general position on my talk page, and maybe this is worthy of a talk subject (something I didn't know was an option until today). I have shown point by point how there is not ONE reliable secondary source for this article.  Let's follow the bouncing  ball. I state the article has no WP:V. I understand that WP:NOT is a contentious issue here, and I'm pleased that editors have stated they would clean up the article. So I ask, clean it up with what? Let's take a look at the sources before you waste your time.  The answer comes back, we have a NYT article. But as I've since determined, and no one has refuted, that's a primary source.  So the particular question of sources is still a serious issue and has not been addressed to my satisfaction. When I say "my satisfaction", I say with all humility and respect to my own POV, you may well be satisfied with something else, and if I'm not satisfied I'll accept the verdict and adjust accordingly.  I hope the resolution is Redirect and merge, and then we can look at the content of this article point by point as a further study and education in what WP:V means in practice.Slofstra (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, slamdiego, in that to all appearances I've been somewhat overbearing in my style of argumentation. I tend towards strong statements and vehement argumentation, at my peril, but I can't help that I was born in the Netherlands. :) At the same time, to put it mildly, I have not seen, in many of the verdicts, any serious effort in establishing whether good secondary sources exist for this article, or in looking at how the existing article is structured. The way I read this is that many editors are content with the existence of either primary or tertiary sources. But this clearly is not in alignment with wiki policy. My point would be, either change the policy or drill down and see if there are any secondary sources. I know there are a large number of unreliable sources in this area, and that doesn't mean that they are untrue or entirely untrue, but their reliability is unknown, the POV in these sources is usually strongly 'anti-' or strongly 'pro-', so do you want these sources to be mined for content in wiki? Because that is what is actually happening. Slofstra (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop writing padded dissertations here. Anything and everything that you have had to say could have been said much more briefly.
 * Don't attempt to categorize my position as a willingness to sacrifice integrity for anything; it's not.
 * I'm not going to read your personal summary below. I'm not even going to finish reading the paragraph which begins with your asking me to do so, unless you pay me some money to do so and you attend to my explanation as to how you could have expressed its ideas far more concisely.
 * Your style does not come across as overbearing; it comes across as pompous, and your confusion of the former with the latter reinforces that impression. Overbearing rhetoric would have more efficacy. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So does this mean you don't love me anymore, you big baby? Slofstra (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It means that you are wasting the time of everyone, including your own. As to whether anyone has ever loved you, I cannot say. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose you consider that your prickly modus operandus -- which includes 1)a critique of style over substance, 2) a reading in of antagonistic intonation where none exists, 3) an obtuse tendency to distort my remarks, 4) no engagement to the main issues at hand, and 5) pronouncement of your conclusions without support -- to be conducive to reaching consensus. And this present conversation with you notwithstanding I think the dialogue here has teased out some important issues -- for my benefit anyway; I can't speak for anyone else. You might care to read at least the very last two paragraphs which I added earlier today. Slofstra (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I critiqued what substance there was until you used a sea of verbal inefficiency as if to off-set the paucity of substance.
 * No, I responded plainly to plain content (until, as I said, the ocean of words washed away hope that you'd make an better case).
 * No, either you express yourself badly (beyond mere inefficiency), or you reinterpret your remarks when they prove ineffectual under their plain meaning.
 * No, I engaged the main issue in my original comment and in my replies to you until you ceased to do so. And your earlier claim that I was arguing for sacrificing integrity to convenience cannot be reconciled with your new charge that I wasn't engaging the main issue. (But, after all, you're now just frustratedly groping for a plausible charge.)
 * No, the support was at hand in each case. The only unsupported claim was your pretense that I would sacrifice the integrity of the article for other goals.
 * Consensus has already been reached, it is for keeping the article.
 * These discussions aren't intended to be a place for you to work-out your world-view. You need to find a chat-room, salon, or saloon for that.
 * The passages in this world each of which I might read are in totality far more than I can read. While it is hypothetically possible that something that you have written elsewhere (below or otherwise) could be read profitably, I make my best guess based upon such things as what I have read from you.  I think that I'd care more to spend my time otherwise. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You still misunderstand my point of view, my friend. Let the course of our present conversation be all my fault then: this is all just drivel.  You might get more here Talk:Cooneyites, and here User_talk:Slofstra, where I've put a little more thought into it.  Not to mention those last 2 paragraphs I added earlier today; I have no problem working within the consensus view.  Slofstra (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not planning to pursue further study of your philosophy, in application to the article or otherwise. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only relevant statement which you've made is a back-handed "I'm sure that the formal requirements of Wikipedia (such as they are) can be met", which is exactly the question under review, and was offered by you without detailed examination or support. And you continue to display your lack of engagement and indifference to the question at hand. How can you then in good conscience offer a recommendation? I don't wish to instigate you to re-argue the question of the AFD which verdict I have lost, and not without substantive reasons; my point here is the stand-offishness which has marked the tenor of your entire commentary.Slofstra (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my original comment contains relevant statements (and the imperative “Remove or substantiate anything that seems to be “original research” or not founded on ‘reliable sources’.” plainly implies some relevant claims). Your problem is that I haven't responded your replies as worthy argumentation.  You slapped at straw-men, and produced rhetoric analogous to the hippopotamus in Fantasia — over-large and pirouetting, and I told you not to do such things.  What was at hand was your behavior, and I responded to that.  I might be willing to enable your behavior if I saw that it were important to persuade you that the article is salvageable and that a salvaged article is desirable, but nothing signals such importance to me. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- indicated some significant coverage in WP:RS/WP:V sources.  However, there are a large amount of additional sources here (Notice the presence of books written solely about the Cooneyites).  I'll work on expanding this article with all these sources mentioned above, standardize it and reformat the citations/references section and cleanup the article overall.  Cirt (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you use those sources, the article will contract not expand; check them. I suggest we merge the article and when you've built a BRAND NEW one, open the edit window and post it. I will settle for the article being reduced to a stub, and a reference added to Restorationism. Incidentally, why do you think no WP:SOURCESwere used by the article editors?  In retrospect a dumb idea, better to merge to Christian Conventions and break out later if section can grow from reliable sources.Slofstra (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Good sources included. --GwydionM (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept then I sincerely hope someone updates WP:V and WP:SOURCES to indicate the specific situations in which SPS and OR are allowed in the interests of "finding reasons to keep articles" rather than delete. Slofstra (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor responses here imply that the present content of the article is 'citable' and the question is simply that this work has not been done. My point is that none of the material in the article exists in credible sources as listed in WP:SOURCES.  It all comes from the personal research of the article editors as well as self-published web sites. Slofstra (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The group clearly exists, and is sufficiently notable, if somewhat obscure. If there are concerns about specific claims in the article that aren't backed by the sources provided, then those claims can be challenged or removed, but the article itself should not be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification, Terraxos: The sources provided are self-published. You mean those as well?


 * IMO, the editors responding here who work in the Religion area have a high tolerance for WP:NOR and WP:V violations. As someone who has a B.A. in English Language and Literature, and has at least a sense for what academic standards demand in writing, this test case is telling me something about the policies advertised by 'wikipedia': they are more honoured in the breach than the observance. I'm quite disappointed, but I can't blame writers who don't want to be constrained by editorial standards. This may be a flaw in wikipedia's structure, writers should not be involved in editorial functions; it's a conflict of interest.Slofstra (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: That is not a fair estimation of what is being said in this discussion. Several editors have noted that though the article itself at the present time might not be up to par as far as sourcing per Wikipedia's standards, it has been brought to our attention - and it soon will be.  We have also shown you through links to many sources that the subject matter is covered in books, news articles, and by academic scholars in journal articles - all in writings that do not address the subject tangentially - but rather address the subject directly, often incorporating the name of the group into the title of pieces dealing directly with it.   Cirt (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, it would indeed be nice to be proven wrong on this last point. But none of these sources have been used in the existing article. No-one here has tried to argue that the article as it stands has even a modicum of WP:V. What do you say then, that we stub the article and make a fresh start?
 * I have looked through the sources provided once more. 1) The sources indexed by Google and above are either SPS (e.g. Parker) or polemical (e.g. Irvine) or very brief religious encyclopedia type entries. There are a few newspaper articles of Cooneyite gatherings which are of peripheral use in creating an article. 2) A challenge to you, Cirt, to back up the conclusions you have made: show me just one or two papers written by academic scholars which have appeared in peer-reviewed or refereed historical or religious studies journals; I don't need a list. My own take is that the heavy scholarly lifting required to produce a paper or thesis on the Cooneyites such that the work would pass peer review, has not been done. If I am correct, the article will stay a stub though I dare say 100 words of proper WP:V could be written about the group.  If you are correct, we will get much more.  But whatever we get it will be WP:V and that is what we all want, right? Slofstra (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will be WP:V., you seem to be applying a much more rigorous standard as far as your own personal requirements for sourcing - than that set out by consensus as per Wikipedia policy on this project.  We are going in circles now, and this is pointless.  I and others agree the article is not adequate in its present state, and could use some work.  I and others agree that there are plenty of sources out there to expand the article, currently not used in the article.  I will work on it, but I'll wait for the AfD to close before expanding it further, & fixing cleanup issues, and removing WP:OR.  Cirt (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be right. I struggle, as I'm sure do others, on what constitutes WP:RS in this area. On the issue of WP:RS the problem is the use of primary sources such as newspaper articles of events, journals, diaries, religious leaflets and bulletins, and so on.  It would seem to me that building an article out of such sources is violation of WP:NOR.  However, WP:Reliable_source_examples has information on using such sources, but also indicates that such articles must have at least one secondary source; I assume to establish WP:NOT. The article WP:Reliable_source_examples would be thought helpful but it doesn't distinguish cleanly between wiki sourcing and historical scholarly research.  The entire area of using primary sources, between what's in WP:NOR and WP:RS seem fuzzy, and that might be me, or it might be the policies themselves. Slofstra (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is sourceable, as is the group's notability.  For ex, here's a New York Times article, apparently from 1909 when the sect was much bigger. There may or may not be original research and unverifiable stuff in there, but there's also verifiable content, so the correct course is to improve rather than delete.  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=990CEEDF143EE033A25757C0A96E9C946897D6CF.  Wikidemo (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Week keep and clean up. With an option to renominate if no work is done to fix the problem.  I am a moderate deletionist: I have seen many an article kept on "potential for growth" grounds... but once the article is "kept", little or no attempt is actually made to improve and grow it.  However, in this case it does sound as there are additional sources, and that there is some potential for growth.  Before we opt to delete we do need to see if the problem can be fixed.  If no work is actually done, then we can revisit the issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Myself and one other editor have stated in this AfD that we will work on this article, re: cleanup and sourcing. I can't speak for the other editor, but If the AfD is closed as keep, I will.  Cirt (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cirt's link to google books, reliable, published sources exist. Dsmdgold (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A review. I know you folks have good reasons for wanting to keep this article in Wiki, and I've softened a little on my position. But I'm going to hold your feet to the fire on how you will be able to accomplish this.  First, all seem to agree that the article has WP:V issues, although consensus on the extent of the problem is lacking.  The 'Keep' arguments pretty much all say, there's good sources, the articles can be fixed.  I'm not sure if it is wise to keep an article based purely on the possibilities inherent in the topic or should the decision rest on the article, per se?  If the article is deleted, and someone re-institutes the article based on WP:V there is nothing to prevent it.  Deletes are never final.


 * I do know and agree that primary source materials about the history of the Cooneyites exist, esp from turn of the Century. Here is the text of the much touted NY Times article, as an example:


 * CROWDS AWAIT MILLENIUM/ Cooneyites Hold Prayer Meetings and Baptize Hundreds Daily in Ireland./ In the belief that the millennium may be ushered in at any moment, more than 2000 "Cooneyites" are holding continuous prayer meetings at Ballinamallard, County Fermanagh. The pilgrims have arrived from all parts of the country, and remarkable scenes are witnessed. Hundreds of persons are baptized publicly in the river every day, and the converts are sleeping in the open air on the farm of the leaders (NY Times, 1909).


 * My background is in English, not History. Is it permissible in wiki to produce historical analysis using primary source materials?  Has anyone run into this issue?  Because if you rewrite this article, that is what you will have to do; this still sounds like OR to me.  When I use wiki as a historical reference, I see mainly secondary, not primary source materials, used to build articles, with the specific exception of current events and issues. Interested to hear what you may think. Slofstra (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See above comments from multiple users. There are plenty of secondary sources available and we will use those.  Cirt (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not agreed that there are "verifiability" issues: I flatly deny it. The group definitely existed, was once prominent and is now minor but still around. No sensible objection has been raised to any specific thing it says.--GwydionM (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the group of writers - instead of posting Google lists - find ONE good WP:V source on this group. Just one source, not a list. The reason I am asking this is because I'm constantly confronted by edits from WP:SPS and many writers do not seem to understand WP:V. Folks, how about we get some agreement on what sources do exist before we run off to possibly wasted effort in rewriting this article.Slofstra (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also regarding a possible merge to Christian Conventions. It turns out the term 'Cooneyites' appearing in sources before 1928 actually refers to the group described under Christian Conventions, pejoratively known as Two by Twos. (I am a member of this group, BTW). Then in 1928, I believe, Cooney split or was ejected from the group, probably both, and began his own group, taking the term Cooneyites with him. Slofstra (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Slofstra, first a verifiable – reliable and creditable source has been cited on this page, several time, The New York Times. Secondly, you have injected a very WP:POV in you statement that; “…”I am a member of this group, BTW (Two by Twos).”, which may make for a very biased opinion on your part in that the Cooneyites can be considered a splinter group of your professed faith, as noted in the article.  Thirdly, what is wrong with stubbing the article.  As I stated above, along with other editors, the piece will be worked on.  In reviewing the history of the article, I have noted that User:SlamDiego has already done some bit work in reviewing the article and I have done some preliminary work with regards to grammar and have tagged for other editors to get involved.  Finally, an article does not just magically appear here on Wikipedia as a shining example of journalism or scholarly work, but evolves over time with the help of volunteer editors improving both the content and prose’s.  Thanks Shoessss |  Chat  23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have missed my comment on the NY Times article just above. I will move it here. From, a newspaper is a primary resource when reporting an event. Use of the NY Times article mentioned would then be a violation of [WP:NOR]]. Slofstra (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you misconstrued my reference, the first criteria of Wikipedia is to establish notability. In referencing the The New York Times we are establishing the fact of notability.  Hence, a notable subject, which qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia!  Regarding the article itself, I agree with you!  It does need work.  However, needing to be reworked, is not a criteria for deletion.  Looks like we are on the same page, just different books :-). Shoessss |  Chat  00:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Good point. In light of comments below which are crossing mine, this is now largely a moot point.  But I am still curious on the question of whether something which has no WP:V sources could be written up in 'wiki'.  It strikes me that there are an entire class of topics at the fringes of established knowledge which arguably are notable, but on which no work has been done outside wiki.  To oversimplify somewhat, wiki is a tertiary source which relies on secondary sources.  You're establishing notability based on the existence of primary sources, but you cannot write an article based on those.Slofstra (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made no comments here pro- or con- the group or groups under consideration. We are discussing technical issues regarding WP:V, to which POV is irrelevant. The ground laid out on WP:V is quite clear actually, we shouldn't have any POV issues with it. The fact I am or am not a member is something people are entitled to know.  I am sympathetic to all Restorationist groups including Cooneyites, although I have never met one.  I actually don't know much about the group, Cooneyites.  I would like to work on 'Local_church' next which also needs a lot of work. Slofstra (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that articles don't magically appear, and my goal is the same as yours. Slofstra (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What I am really trying to do here is drill down on what WP:V means for the area of Restorationist religious groups, an area I'm interested in. I think it's a very, very important discussion. If we can establish some basis on what kinds of articles can or cannot be used in building wiki in this area, it will save a lot of repetitive discussion on a line by line basis, not to mention 'edit wars'. I've put this in the form of a challenge; I hope you see some value in trying to meet that challenge and prove me wrong. With 6 or 7 editors in this discussion, if each finds one, we should be able to have a very useful discussion. And if there are none, well, the implication is fairly obvious, I would think.Slofstra (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect. (after ec) I believe Shoessss is misunderstanding what Slofstra is saying. This article claims to discuss the Cooneyites as an entity distinct from the Christian Conventions, and so the NYT article, from before that split, is not a reference for this article. In most of the Google scholar links, "Cooneyite" is referring to the Christian Conventions and not those who followed Cooney when he split. For instance, Journal of Religious History, vol 17, no 1 (1992), reviewing the Parkers book, refers to "one notable exception: little has been written about the Cooneyite or Go-Preachers or Nameless Ones" - equating all three names. The only sourced content currently in the article which discusses the Cooney followers after the split is the UK 2001 census. That can be merged to Christian_Conventions. Since the name is notable, a redirect should remain. Gimmetrow 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gimmetrow a very fair compromise, that-- ShinmaWa(talk) actually proposed from the beginning.  Which I should have listen too :-).  I see nothing wrong with that!  Shoessss |  Chat  00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have fun you guys. Too much drama.  :) , if you're interested in some help on the article and it ends up not being deleted, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll do what I can.  Cirt (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Amend my statement above. The current link for the UK census reference is a transcript saying that "Cooneyism" is in the list of religions from the census; it doesn't give a count. I have tried searching through the UK census data, and have been unable to verify a census count. Furthermore, it's not clear (to me) that such a count if found would involve only the post-split followers of Cooney, so I'm not sure that's a good reference, either. Gimmetrow 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If we have consensus on merge/ redirect, and I am not assuming that we do although I would favour it, the question then becomes what do we incorporate into the Christian Conventions article. I'd like to see fairly clean text with no issues before it is moved, which to my mind means removing quite a bit of OR and also some POV stuff. I have opened a discussion on this on the article page. Slofstra (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, in principle, since all religious groups that have or have had a demonstrable existence should have WP articles. I think there is enough evidence that there was a split, and that this fraction has remained distinct; this is the basic requirement. This is one area where I think it essential to avoid the possibility of considering the unfamiliar to be unimportant. We have not the least business trying to decide the relationship between the various parts of the various movements, and should do what we always do, which is to report what is said about them. If there is relatively little information, the article should use whatever is available. If we think the information is not as reliable as we would like, qualify it. But I recognize the difficulty in writing articles about groups without a formal structure, or which keep the structure they do have undocumented; this is about as undocumentable as it is possible to get and still have any way of writing an article.  The content would not be dissimilar from what we would have in an integrated article, which probably would be another alternative. there is an advantage in merging, a it would keep the sparse amounts of actual material in context without repetition. The alternative if kept separately is to expand the historical context here. I share what I understand as Slofstra's concern about the possible disappearance of the material. I should mention that Shoessss invited me to comment--but unfortunately the only real way to resolve this is to hope that someone does a proper study and publishes the research.DGG (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I did not invite you to comment. I disagree strongly with your proposal for a basis in researching and writing articles about religious groups. You said, "If there is relatively little information, the article should use whatever is available". Someone else said, "it is better to have no information, than to have information with no sources."  By breaking WP:V you open the door to gossip, received notions and rumour-mongering. On the contrary, WP:V is even more important when writing articles about such groups since there are very strong pro- and con- opinions and WP:V is the one way to ensure the process doesn't break down into edit wars. Slofstra (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, the issue comes down to this, since you seem to be somewhat okay with merging, what should be moved? It's not practical to move the entire text, as is. As mentioned and linked I've opened a discussion on that point. Slofstra (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy there Slofstra, I was the one that asked DGG to comment. I have always found his/her opinion to be constructive and insightful.  I have re-thought a few opinions :-) after his/her comments. Shoessss |  Chat  01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the other reference to my name could be corrected also. :) I've no doubt DGG is being constructive, but I believe you inclusionists are really very wrong for a lot of reasons. See my talk.  Slofstra (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AHH he is old and forgetful, so we cut him a little slack in the area of what name he calls us. :-). Regarding the discussion, how about we move it to the article's talk page, as you suggested, and let other editors comment on the Keep or Delete of the article itself.  Good night all and thanks for the laughs. Shoessss |  Chat  02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Followup. For the benefit of anyone working on AFDs I checked on User:Shoessss point that the existence of a primary source can establish notability for a given topic. It states very clearly in WP:NOT that sources used to establish notability must be secondary sources. That being what it may, my original request for deletion was based on a lack of WP:V not on WP:NOT. I agree with the suggestion of a section in Christian Conventions with a redirect for 'Cooneyites'.  If the section grows it can always be broken out into an article once more. Is this acceptable? Slofstra (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally, I know I've hung tough on a number of points, but the main reason has been to provide clarification for my self on how WP:V should apply in the areas I'm working in. I've summarized the current status of my thinking on my talk page.  I'm not vested into the specific outcome of this case, but my general concern is that too much unverified, controversial material exists in many articles in the Restorationist area.  So any outcome that ameliorates that general concern is acceptable to me. I appreciate the fact that some effort and energy has been expended by other editors on this AFD. Slofstra (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Followup from above. The sources I have looked at which refer to "Cooneyites" use the term synonymously with Christian Conventions, Go-preachers, Two-by-twos and so forth. That means pretty much everything in the first two pages of Google Scholar, and everything based on the Parkers book (like reviews), are actually references for Christian Conventions. So while the *name* is notable: 1) most reliable sources use "Cooneyites" to refer to Christian conventions, 2) the minimal existing content which might use "Cooneyites" to refer to Cooney's followers (the 2001 UK census, and the 1990 Roberts ref if it's reliable) may not actually be about Cooney's followers, and 3) the name is primarily used for a different group, so "Cooneyites" would need disambiguation if there were to be a separate article. Gimmetrow 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the oft-referred to 'Parker/Secret Sect' is a SPS. Have you found a good secondary source in this general area of Cooneyites/Christian Conventions/Two by Twos? My previous challenge refers to the Cooneyites as a distinct group. But even in the case of Two by Twos I've found only one reputable secondary source (Jaenen) within which information is still scant. There are plenty of primary and tertiary materials though. Slofstra (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, above I cited a journal with a review of the Parkers book. The journal ought to be a reliable source in wiki terms. Gimmetrow 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A review of a self-published source? :) Ahhh, I don't know about that one, and it's not really a review, but in a section called 'Short Notices'. Slofstra (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the only valid secondary source I'm aware of (Jaenen). Here's what is says about 'Cooneyites'.  "Edward Cooney ... found himself outside the fellowship with a rump of followers ... in 1928. ... Alec Buchan and Alfred and Sarah Magowan later identified with the Cooneyite ministry which soon disappeared leaving only a few scattered adherents who referred to themselves as the 'outcasts.' (Jaenen 530)" Slofstra (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My present position is to withdraw the request for deletion. I will update later with reasons why. Thanks I have learned a great deal.  See also Talk:Cooneyites where I have consolidated some of the suggestions made here, as usual from my own POV. Slofstra (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason is that I made the AFD on the basis of the article as it reads, and its lack of verifiability. The efficacy of the article's current sources, on which I based my request, have received scant attention here. I've learned that I'm at odds with consensus, which: a) considers the future potential of the article, b) considers the topic's intrinsic notability. I certainly did not put any weight on either factor in considering my request. And I still believe that searching 'Google scholar' to determine notability should be irrelevant; that an article should be judged on the sources used in the article.  From my own knowledge, I would agree that 'Cooneyites' are intrinsically notable in the sense that they existed, had a distinct doctrine, and so on. But if the article as it stands does not use a good secondary source then I believe that topic should not be considered notable. In short, I would put far more weight on the author to establish notability and cite the contents of the article.  Another advantage of this approach is that it focuses debate on serious editorial considerations. REVISED Slofstra (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Slofstra -- you are beginning to show some true insight into how Wikipedia does things and I think that if you stay on this path, you'll make a very good editor.  What you said above is absolutely right.   I think we can all agree that the article as it stands is not up to snuff.   However, usually that alone is not enough for a delete.   On subjects which are intristically notable, as you admit this one is, it is always considered better to improve over delete - as nearly all articles of any notability start off as stubs that are really not up to snuff.  If we deleted every sub-par stub, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia.  For example, here's how teh featured article Rosa Parks started out.  I'll admit that its sometimes difficult in separating the wheat from the chaff, but that's why we have these discussions.  :) :)  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 07:27, 3 February 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.