Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Article quotes no reliable sources to establish notability Mayalld (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, albeit weakly. It is fairly obvious that the article's author is a newcomer here, and in the process of mastering the syntax for article creation.  The author is apparently also directly interested in the religion in question, and needs to get a handle on neutral point of view: The church is in strong opposition to idol worshippers and forces of darkness; these evil forces are at all times rebuked and overcome . .   Parts of the article are apparently referenced by unpublished interviews with church leaders, which poses verifiability issues. On the other hand, the article purports to describe a religious movement that has been around in one shape or form since the mid-1920s.  This fact alone seems to make a fairly good prima facie case for notability.  Apparently published sources and biographies of church leaders exist in Nigeria, and the article does seek to reference these as well; this literature may be a primary source, but it is a source.  And. . . it is interesting reading.  Generally, the fact that sources may be obscure or hard to find in Europe or North America is not grounds to delete anything.  The article was created the same day it was nominated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Question - Is this the same as the "Cherubim and Seraphim Society" mentioned in the Aladura page? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Answer - It seems to be; the founder is mentioned on that page.  Will add a link. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources are indeed not so easy to come by for the good reasons outlined above but there are enough books about the African churches on Googlebooks
 * to make it clear that this is a mainstream Christian denomination in West Africa, and a bit more Googling shows that it has enough standing to have hosted a number of major African synods and also has well-established branches in the UK and US. The questions of tone and points of English usage can be dealt with by sensible editing. This article should not have been nominated here so soon. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * and WP:BITE is always worth re-reading.HeartofaDog (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just about to cite WP:BITE myself. Anyway, in a moment I'll be adding a list of respectable secondary references to the article in question, should anybody feel the call to tidy the article up. They establish notability, if nothing else comes of them. Paularblaster (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems that the great bulk of the text was directly copied from the church's own website. I've removed it for now, bearing in mind the possibility that the creator may have, or be able to obtain, permission to use it. What's left, with Paularblaster's addl refs, should in any case be enough for an OK small article, which I'll do myself in a few hours if no-one else wants to.HeartofaDog (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no intention to WP:BITE (and I haven't done anything that would constitute a bite), although I'm increasingly seeing this guideline trotted out and put ahead of policy. As far as I'm aware WP:BITE isn't about ignoring policy just because somebody is new (do we perhaps allow every newcomer to create three junk articles that we don't delete?). If a newcomer creates an article that ought to be deleted, and which cannot sensibly be moved to user space, it should be deleted. Mayalld (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is not about "ignoring policy" or not deleting "junk articles", neither of which are being advocated here. People are throwing WP:BITE at you, not because you are trigger-happy and have nominated too early without doing any legwork, but because of the tone of your reply to the article's creator on its Talk page. If this is your normal approach to new editors, then you will be seeing WP:BITE mentioned a great deal - so you may as well take it on board now. HeartofaDog (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I fail to see any WP:BITE issues in my remark on the article talk page Mayalld (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewritten as a stub on the basis of the external links given - needs a lot more work, but should get it off the present reef.HeartofaDog (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep now that HeartofaDog's rewrite has solved the problems with the article. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the references. A pretty good start for an articleDGG (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2007 (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.