Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Zimmerman (bishop)


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Zimmerman (bishop)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article presents an abysmal failure of GNG. The two sources are a blog style database with directory style information about bishops, and another blog style listing of bishops by diocese. Netiehr provide enough information to qualify as indepth coverage, and they certainly are not reliable, and their indepdence of the subject is also questionable. It shows in how sub-standard this article is. We do not have any indication of Zimmerman's nationality. He may be American or Canadian, but could also be German, Swiss or Austrian. One source indicates that he was a priest of a missionary order, a group who much more often than diocesan priests serve as bishops in areas other than where they are from. My search for additional sources turned up no substantive coverage. We clearly cannot justify having this article with so little sourcing, and my search was not able to come up with anything else. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. All bishops are notable. Sources from Madagascar in the 1960s and 1970s probably exist but are unlikely to be online. [:de:Joseph_Zimmermann_(Geistlicher,_1923) The corresponding German article] includes Birmenstorf as his place of birth, but lists only http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bzim.html as a reference. Even though the article is a stub, it is still useful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not keep articles on vague unspecific claims that reliable sources exist. We actually have to find and produce relaible sources to justify keeping articles. Rubbish articles sources to rubbish non-reliable blog sources are not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Every article should be assessed on its own merits. Most bishops will pass GNG but this doesn't mean that we should automatically presume that every single bishop will pass GNG even without any evidence. That would be absurd. It reminds me of the circular reasoning often found surrounding secondary schools and professional footballers who often used to get a free pass on GNG just by simply being able to prove that they existed at some point although consensus has recently leaned slightly more towards GNG over other guidelines on a wider number of topics. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If we even had a source that was the diocesan controled paper actually giving a full article on the life and ministry of Zimmerman I might be inclined to overlook the technical failure of passing GNG and keep it, and if we had non-diocesan controlled Catholic focused media giving indepth coverage of Zimmerman I would clearly vote to keep, although I am sure some eitors would be hesitant to even call that indepdent. However here we literrally just have blogs that are in directory style and lack any actual prose about the life of Zimmerman. What we know about him you more have to guess, or is unsourced, than is sourced. So evidently he was born in Switzerland, joined a missionary order, and was bishop in Madagascar. We have no indication of if he was a priest in Switzerland before being bishop, or in Madagascar, or both, or both and other places, or just other places, maybe other places on the African continent, like Mozambique and Tanzania, or maybe far flung like Nigerian and Ivory Coast, or maybe elsewhere in Europe, or maybe he was somewhere else where languages similar to Malagasy are spoken (like Indonesia or the Phillipines among many other countries) before he was sent to Madagascar, however all of that is idle speculation that I am trhrowing out with only the knowledge that the Catholic Church is an interantional Church that in the 20th-century as well as the 21st-century has significant operations in the vast majority of the world, and that there are longstanding shortages of priests from some areas and they are supplied from elsewhere, and that at least until the 1980s the main source of priests was European countries, and they went from those to all corners of the world. The balance has been readjustied some of late, so that in the US there is a reliance on foriegn priests no longer in the main from Europe, and not as much from Latin America as the Catholic memership is, but heavily from the Philippines, Vietnam and Nigeria, and maybe to a lesser extent from a few other countries on the African contient. However there are lots of people who go against any extablished grain, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the general flow of leadership is still to this day in the main American leaders being deployed abroad, although there are attempts to limit how much of the leadership in any local is done by Americans abroad, yet Taniel Wakolo was a Fijian serving as mission president in the US, and Thierry Mutombo, who we need an article on but I am not convinced that the Church News, Deseret News and Ensign information on him I can find plus Jeffrey Bradshaw's presentation to the FairMormon conference would be enough to pass GNG requirements (they would be far more than I can find on Zimmerman), and any coverage in addition. So for example I can find which is more than I have been able to find on Zimmerman. The problem is that I know the information there is outdated. In the interim Mutombo served for a time as mission president in Baltimore, Maryland (a positions that we have generally not considered a level of notability) he is now a general authority seventy (a position that structurally is closer to being a Catholic Cardinal than a Catholic bishop, but the analogies are complex and so equivalancy is hard to prove). We also have this coverage  that is only super incidentally about Mutumbo. I have a suspicion that at some point I will be able to build an article on Mutumbo, at 43 he is the youngest current General Authority Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the sourcing on him is not yet substantial enough to justify an article, but it is way more than we have on Zimmerman. See I can produce more mentions of Mutumbo like this  I can even find this article in French on Mutumbo, although it is a published article on not just the Church, but I believe the Africa Central Area where he serves as second counselor . We can also find clearly independent news mention of Mutumbo's call, but I doubt it passes the indepth requirements, see for example here . Oh, and here  near the bottom you can find a published version of the courtship story of Thierry Mutombo. This  Church News is the most substantial coverage of Mutombo, although lacking some of the deeply personal touches of Bradshaw's presentation. It is far, far more than we have on Zimmerman, but as I said, I am not convinced it is enough to create an article. We have basically nothing on Zimmerman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Some people will tell you that a stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is like a Catholic diocese, which caused at least someone somewhere to argue that Mitt Romney having been a stake president made him like having been a Catholic bishop. This is however not a very good analogy for a lot of reasons, so I will not trott out the fact that Mutumbo was a stake president. People who have thought about the matter in a broader context argue that stakes are actually more like multi-site Megachurches, and the stake president is like the executive senior pastor of a megachurch, except most megachurches have more members than most stakes. There are Catholic parishes with more members than any stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would instead argue that overall an Area President in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is roughly equivalent to a diocesan bishop, although since all Area Presidents are also General Authrity Seventies, I would argue that their equivalance is a little bit more like archbishops who also happen to be Cardinals. Mutumbo has not as of yet been an area presdient, he is a counselor in an Area Presidency. Do not even make me try to find an analogy to the counselor system. Someone is going to claim "counselors to area presidencies would be sort of like auxiliary bishops", and I would say "yes, as long as you emphasize the sort of like, and do not read to much into the equivalance issues".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete Keep . This is tough, but a Diocesan bishop generally meets notablility  Delete, as after reviewing, I see that was not a guideline. In light of new guidelines and research, I have once more reversed my position and believe we should keep this article. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a clearly discrminatory standard. We do not accept as default notable people who are stucturally much higher in other religions. There is no agreed upon notability guideline for religious leaders that trumps the requirements of GNG, and GNG is clearly not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I misread that page and have corrected my vote and comment. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you consider giving this a second look in light of WP:BISHOPS and the substantial expansion work undertaken by User:Genericusername57 and User:Eastmain? Cbl62 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping and the info. I have changed my vote back to keep above. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG with additional sourcing added to the article and per guidance at WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide. Zimmerman was a diocesan bishop of the Roman Catholic church, holding that position for 28 years. The article has been substantially expanded and sourced since the nomination was made. Based on the additional sourcing, and Zimmerman's long tenure as a diocesan bishop, this seems like a clear "Keep" to me. Cbl62 (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also notable per WP:BISHOPS. Cbl62 (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That project guidance needs to be rejected. Individual projects do not get to establish such standards, and in this case it is clearly being used to institute uneven coverage of religious minorities as opposed to a major religion, in some cases in ways that ignore what is actually the majority religion in a particular location, so we have the absurdity of an article on the Catholic Bishop of Utah who has virtually nil societal impact but not on the Area President of the Utah Area of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has very large societal impact. Also considering how long this article languished as a super meaningless stub, and how many Catholic bishops articles still remain such, declaring all Catholic bishops notable has the actual impact of creating lots of short meaningless articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your extensive comments above regarding the comparative notability of Mormon church officials (e.g., Thierry Mutombo) don't seem to have any bearing whatsoever on this article, as AfD does not exist to make points about other topics. See WP:POINTy. Moreover, your mischaracterization of this article as "a super meaningless stub" ignores the substantial expansion work undertaken by and .  At the time of the nomination, the article was a very short stub, but thanks to the diligent efforts of these two editors, this article now passes muster. Cbl62 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop engaging in hate speech. Referring to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by that deprecated term that you use is seen as very insulting and rude. I ask that you cease and desist from engaging in such hate speech immediately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Our main article on the LDS church notes that it is informally known as "the Mormon Church". Do you have any sourcing to support your novel assertion that referring to the church in this manner is "hate speech"? If not, please recant this assertion. Also, would you consider responding to the substance of my comments? Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not going to respond to hate speech, and trying to tell someone who has informed you that what they are doing is hate speech by telling them they are wrong is just plain wrong. President Russell M. Nelson's speech given in General Conference of October 2018 clearly outlines why members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not appreciate being referred to by incorrect names, and other speeches by him have clearly outlined specifically why the nickname you insist on doubling down in using is incorrect. A more recent study has shown there is a clear connection between negative editorial content in news articles and using this name. If a group has asked that a name be stopped using, and you insist on using it spitefully in direct opposition to their request to stop using that name, that fits the very definition of hate speech. There is no substance to a comment that opens with such hate speech.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness. Your argument boils down as follows: 1) JPL has unilaterally decided that the term "Mormon church" is "hate speech" (though JPL has not cited a single source where the LDS church has made such an assertion), 2) Cbl62 quoted the main article on the LDS church which also uses the term (and JPL has not complained about use of the term there or in our articles on Mormon missionary, the Mormon Trail, Mormon fundamentalism, Mormon cosmology, Mormon pioneers, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir), 3) Cbl62 is thereby doubling down (and doing so "spitefully") on "hate speech", and 4) therefore, JPL need not address the merits of this AfD. Brilliant. Simply brilliant! Cbl62 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Its name has been changed. You are showing severe ignorance on the subject by insisting on doubling down in using a term that has been clearly depricated. The fact that you cite something that has had its name deliberately and publicly changed shows that you are doubling down on your course of rudeness and disrespect. This is clearly the methods and processes of one who engages in hate speech. I have infact complained about the incorrect use of the term in the horribly named article on missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also consider that a clear example of hate speech.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The last linked, actually goes to the article on Tabernacle Choir. And if the hate mongering editor had bothered to actually research things instead of attacking others with blanket statements with no proff, he would see I was a major force in getting the article renamed, although I wanted to rename it correctly to Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BISHOPS. StAnselm (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Whatever the objections to this article as it was when nominated, it is now in a satisfactory state to be kept, even if some of the links are to other WPs. The whole discussion on LDS has noting to do with the topic.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:SIGCOV has been demonstrated. Frankly given some of the nominator's comments above, this and a similar AfD do not seem like good-faith nominations, more a case of WP:POINT. There are plenty of places outside Wikipedia to grind your axe. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an unfair attack. I did a reasonable search for sources and came up with absolutely nothing when I nominated this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2021 (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.