Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Sanborn


 * 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 no consensus. There's substantial disagreement about notability, the quality (and independence) of sources, etc. In any case, some improvements have been made already, and there's a promise of more improvements to come. I recommend people hold off for a while (let's call it a week) to give time for improvements to be completed. After that time, if somebody wants to bring this back to AfD for another look, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Donald Sanborn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article's sources are not reliable/independent. I have searched for reliable sources (Google Books, Google News, Google Scholar). I can't find anything substantial. The article lede calls him a "Roman Catholic Bishop", but he is not recognised by the Roman Catholic Church as a legitimate Bishop. He belongs to a schismatic group which left the Catholic Church due to their rejection of the reforms of Vatican II. He was consecrated a Bishop by his fellow schismatics, without approval from the Vatican, but the chain of consecrations goes back to a Vatican-recognised Bishop who broke the rules by consecrating other Bishops without papal approval. (Technically, he might be classed by the Catholic Church as "valid but illicit" – i.e., according to Catholic beliefs, it is possible the ceremony really made him a Bishop in a spiritual/sacramental/theological sense, but that ceremony was carried out in violation of the Church's own internal laws.) SJK (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. our coverage of leaders of church groups is not restricted to those considered legitimate by any one particular denomination. His statusin the Roman CatholicChurch is irrelevant here.  DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should delete his article because the Catholic Church doesn't recognise him as a legitimate Bishop. I am saying we should delete his article due to lack of any reliable sources engaging in substantive discussion of him (a point which you haven't addressed.) Why then did I bring up his status with the Catholic Church? Because, the article makes him sound like he is just another Roman Catholic Bishop, and some people might think "Roman Catholic Bishop = automatically notable", but if he is not actually recognised by the Roman Catholic Church as a Bishop (despite what the article makes it sound), that rules out that particular argument. SJK (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. After half an hour of searching, I haven't been able to find any reliable, independent sources. All are either at the quality of this or closely connected to the subject. Although it appears that in sedevacantist and traditional Catholic circles Sanborn is quite infamous, there simply aren't the published sources available to demonstrate his notability. Kilopylae (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. He is definitely notorious in the traditionalist Catholic movement, he worked with Mons. Marcel Lefebvre, and was of the nine American priests who were expelled from the SSPX along with Fr. Anthony Cekada, these would come to form the Society of Saint Pius V. DizzinessOfFreedom (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BASIC says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Where is the significant coverage of Sanborn in "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? You assert he is "notorious"; that may or may not be true, but even if he is notorious (in some circles), that fact alone doesn't make him notable by Wikipedia's standards. The assertion of notoriety needs to be demonstrated by references to reliable sources, not simply by your claim (even if your claim happens to be true.) SJK (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I don't see any independent sources; if he is a leader of a large group he would meet WP:CLERGY as a bishop; if this is a church of 100 congregants and 10 bishops he would not be. The current article is also wildly non-neutral; a person who is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church should not be described as a "Roman Catholic Bishop" regardless of their theological claims.   to maybe comment on the theological issues. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to a version before 's edits; I'm generally concerned by their editing and will comment further on their talk page. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject fails WP:CLERGY and WP:BASIC. All of the cited sources are affiliated and or fail WP:RS. Subject is a schismatic Catholic ultra-traditionalist who refuses to recognize all of the Vatican II era Popes. He received his priestly ordination from the Society of St. Pius X, which certainly is a notable organization. Since then he found them to be insufficiently radical and has drifted off into the highly fragmented world of rad-trad Catholicism. His episcopal consecration comes via a long line of so called independent and ultra-trad Catholic bishops. I am not sure if the Roman Church would automatically extend recognition to them as valid orders at this point. In any event this is not the head of any notable ecclesial body and he is most definitely not in communion with the Holy See. He is what a friend of mine likes to refer to as a bishop whose cathedral is in his attic. See also Episcopi vagantes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ad Orientem above. There are notable schismatic bishops, but this isn't one of it. He's just a random crazy person. Random crazy people can be notable, but the sourcing isn't here for this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion does not enter the question here. 67.79.171.130 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't have the coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and it doesn't look like his position gets him a pass under WP:CLERGY. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep An important article for anyone researching on Traditionalist Catholicism, as he was an important member of the Society of Saint Pius X,, and was one of the leading members of the Society of Saint Pius V.   Now I see that most(if not all) of those who commented here have not done any research on the subject.67.79.171.130 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. And beware recentism. Here's the New York Times on him in 1976. Ultra traditionalist Catholics Back Suspended Prelate, and some 1977 follow-up French Prelate Celebrates Latin Mass in Texas as He Defies Pope.  He is a significant part of the Traditionalist Catholicism movement.  There was lots on him in major papers, back in the day: "New Seminary Stirring Curiosity", Bates, Michael D. Tampa Tribune; Tampa, Fla. [Tampa, Fla]15 Apr 2007: 12;  "Outside the (church) law", Robinson, Angela. Newsday (1940-1989), Nassau ed.; Long Island, N.Y. [Long Island, N.Y]06 Sep 1976: 6.  Lots more similar.  Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note Sanborn attracted major press attention in the 1970s. This article was written recently by a partisan of Sanborn's using PRIMARY sourcing.  Noticing the date, I ran his name through a Proquest news archive search, where notability was instantly patent.  Wikipedia, we have a problem:  Lots of good editors couldn't find him because articles in major newspapers from the 1970s do not show up in a gNews search, plus, they were misled by the poor. POV sourcing on the page.  I don't have a solution, except to advise that we guard against this sort of recentism by understanding that major figures form ancient history (the pre-internet 1980s and 1970s) require a closer look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tagged page for PRIMARY and POV. Notable individual but page needs a rewrite.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * with invitation to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Struck vote above based on sources identified by User:E.M.Gregory. Article needs some expert attention and a non-POV rewrite, but if the sources exist, I agree with keeping it. PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The two articles linked from the NY Times are about Marcel Lefebvre, an enormously important figure in the Roman Catholic Traditionalist movement and who is unquestionably notable. Sanborn gets little more than a mention in the two article and a very brief quote in one of them. That is nowhere enough to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm in the process of sourcing the page with bio facts in the first article, and I can see more material (about his move to Florida, seminary. there) in other newspapers in an archive search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:HEY I have tweaked and expanded the article drawing on many major newspapers. POV and PRIMARY material still needs to be gone over, and deleted or revised to reduce partisan POV.  MOre sources exist, but require use of news archives.  I used Proquest.  And to all a good night.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. And if "strong keep" has any weight, then make it "strong." The WP:N is overwhelming. How can the nominator claim that there is no WP:RS when even the NYtimes has articles on him with expanded explanations of the controversies he has helped generate? How could anyone claim that this bishop does not pass WP:CLERGY when the guideline says, "The bishops of major denominations, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops, are typically found to be notable." The sources provided above plus the improvements in the article should have quenched any doubts of this article's notability. Den... (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2018 (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.