Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Concepción of the Nativity and the Perpetual Help of Mary


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

María Concepción of the Nativity and the Perpetual Help of Mary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Consider also, about the order (or proposed order):
 * Consider also, about the order (or proposed order):

About a Catholic nun. There are three refs in the article, one by the subject and two that don't mention the subject. There are two external links, one to an unreliable site and one that doesn't mention the subject. There are refs out there, but most are to social media or unreliable sites. There are short mentions in a couple of books. Suggest page be redirected to Franciscan Minims of the Perpetual Help of Mary with some material merged in there. The author is a member of the order and is not a native English speaker, but they do mean well. Bgwhite (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the article is a work in progress that has been up less than 24 hours -- there are many wiki articles with less [accurate] source data and references; since most references regarding the subject are in Spanish they are not helpful to English users of wiki who want information on this subject; the article has many references to other wiki articles and definitions; the subject has not yet been the object of English biographies; an autobiographical source is often more accurate than a "commentary" from someone who has no direct contact with the subject, the history, or the facts. To ensure this article is ACCURATE and well resourced and cross referenced will take time; it is a work in progress and there is nothing better available worldwide or I would reference it. Startarrant (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this article and delete article on the order (was Keep). It's reasonable to let editor working on it to proceed. The biography/autobiography that is off-cited is fine as a source for non-controversial facts. No info is disputed, right? The editor has less than 500 edits; give some room. However the editor should make an effort in future to try to establish notability more clearly using multiple sources. -- do ncr  am  03:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've been dealing with the editor for over a year. They didn't have any resources a year ago about the person or the order except the person's book.  They still don't have any.  Put it into draft space, but it doesn't meet article criteria.  Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh? I believe you, but there is no Talk page and so no record of any discussion about it.  I see this article was created 22 February 2016, perhaps it is a new version of something created a year ago that was deleted?  Also I see a note by you in editor's Talk page history a year ago, but no mention of this topic.  A link to past discussion would help here. -- do  ncr  am  02:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I found and linked to prior discussion below. I changed my view to "delete" as there seem to be no acceptable-for-Wikipedia sources available to say anything at all about the nun or the order.  It even is remotely possible that the order does not exist, that if one of us goes to its supposed location in Mexico that we would find there is nothing there. Assuming there really was such a nun and order, it will be frustrating for the contributor to hear, but there's not even enough evidence available to rule out the possibility that this is an elaborate hoax. I googled "order of atonement Franciscan". There now exist multiple copies of the Wikipedia article on other sites. There's some detail at avalon44.tripod.com about an order being created, then disbanded, then recreated, ("Messages from heaven to the messenger in Mexico / 1969-1979 / Volume I" ), but that is at best a copy of a primary and internal source that could be used for non-controversial facts if there were already other independent sources establishing Wikipedia-notability. It is not an independent source. There is some video I cannot access at avalon44.tripod.com.
 * I suppose there probably is an order but we don't have usable sources to say anything about them, and it seems unlikely the contributor will provide any soon. So, oddly, it is wp:too soon for Wikipedia to cover the order and the nun; if/when she is canonized (if that what has been pending for decades?) there can be articles. A copy of the current article should be emailed to the contributor (and they or anyone else could request and get a copy anytime, too) and the article can be moved to draft space to allow them to try to develop it with sources ( but a draft will itself be deleted after a period of time...six months I think...if it is not edited. do  ncr  am  16:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep [This is to be the one "vote" by editor startarrant] (Keep) prior discussion-- exi[s]ts mostly in the "view history" or bg's talk pages somewhere unless my replies from Jan-Feb 2015 were deleted by bg on his talk page ("over a year ago" bwhite suggested that the biographical material about the foundress of the mfPS have its own separate wiki article rather than have that information included in the wiki page on the Order she founded / and its 3 foundations in Mexico (bg also set up a "monitum" on that wiki page in Feb 2015 but no one else over the past year took issue with the page or editor); in reviewing other wiki articles I saw bg was right; bgwhite can be very helpful as he has considerable experience and spends much time with wiki but it takes a saint-load of patience to learn exactly what he is getting at especially with those of us with less wiki editing experience since his mode of operation is to delete first; all-in-all bg's ultimately constructive criticisms have always IMPROVED the content (for universal readership), references and technical functionality of the article(s); but I'm not a pro (like bg) and it is hard when you spend time doing your best to assure accuracy, factual references, first hand eye witness, and so forth -- on a person from another country/language who has only been dead since 1979. Even Mother Teresa herself (and her wiki pages) have had all sorts of problems with edit-warring, ongoing "commentary" vs. fact; so accurate quotes and autobiographical material / diaries, etc are always excellent resource materials to start with. "Show me the text." There are other internet sites on these subjects that exclude factual data, accurate quotes, and autobiographical data preferring "original work", personal interpretation, commentary.
 * Technical, content and resource recommendations are VERY welcome -- I repeat that I may have disagreed initially but every criticism, when I thought it through, has IMPROVED the content -- however, it took me a year to find time to incorporate bgwhite's biography division and immediately bg posts a "delete" and then suggests (above) reincorporating the items bg deleted a year ago from the page on the Order/Foundation suggesting to me at that time that they belonged in a separate wiki page biography article!!! ??? !!! (I do appreciated bg's REDIRECT suggestion correcting my attempt to "RELAY" (ergo making a too-mini article that flagged a bot delete) as I could not remember how wiki accomplished the needed process technically) Startarrant (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Previous guidance to editor from editor Bgwhite (the AFD nominator) is archived at User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 41. Ping . do  ncr  am  15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Potential keep -- I would have thought that the founder of a religious order was notable. However this depends on how important the order is.  Unfortunately neither this article, nor that on the order give any detail on that.  Some orders may be quite ephemeral, dying out (or merging) when the founder retires or dies.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 *  (Keep) [duplicate] notable but small & struggling -- the point of the article is to present accurate information from 1914 to the present. The Order and its members are still under papal review and development. Such matters often take centuries where the Church is concerned. I suppose that if the Church suppresses the Order then wiki can either delete the page (!) or add a note that the Order was either finally approved, left as is, or suppressed a second time.
 * Also, unlike Blessed Mother Teresa (the editor also knew and worked with Bl Mother Teresa) Mother Maria Concepcion is not even a candidate for Canonization at this time (Mother Maria Concepction died in 1979 while Blessed Mother Teresa died in 2005 and may be canonized in 2016. They were born within 4 years of each other).
 * The Church is very slow in cases where (like St Teresa of Avila; St Joan of Arc) the person has "visions" or "locutions" with Christ or other canonized Saints. Bl Mother Teresa kept absolute silence on any such matters which were extremely rare and only revealed by her spiritual directors long after Bl Mother Teresa's death. That was not the case with this Mexican woman who had exceptional supernatural conversations, formation and direction from her childhood. Add to it the Mexican Masonic relationship in her own family during a violent anti-Church political era in Mexico and the Church is still clearly taking the very long view of this notable matter. The point is NOT to have an edit war. Just the facts. Startarrant (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is that relevant? Joan of Arc died in 1431 and was canonised in 1920! It sometimes takes a long time for the RC Church to recognise its saints. And some have, let's say, better publicity machines than others... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. : Updated: Delete Both Apparently self-published autobiography is not a reliable source. I've been unable to find any independent sources about this group. It's associated with the SSPX, so it's not exactly "still under papal review and development."--Jahaza (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment [ Keep ] wiki article is objective and references facts while webpages belonging to specific groups avoid certain facts (historic and other). The wiki article indicates the founder/foundress had no association with the SSpx or any other marginal groups rejecting papal authority, and the wiki article and autobiography (referenced) indicate why her autobiography, the primitive rule of St Francis of Assisi, her correspondence, the Spanish/English magazine Estrella that she edited and which had worldwide readership/subscriptions, etc are never referenced by SSpx groups: as for example -- the 5th Vow of Obedience to the Pope, papal approval required, relationship with / visits to Pope Paul VI, the focus on Atonement to end schisms within the Church, accepting dissolution by a Mexican bishop rather than allowing the Order to deviate from what Christ had specifically defined/dictated to her, etc). The wiki article states that since the death of the founder/foundress "Secular institutes (some in union with the Holy See but others not) have developed." Startarrant (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed your "Keep" here to "Comment". "Vote" just once but comment freely. Is there no newspaper mention of this person ever? Do you not have any news clippings? Old ones pre-Internet are okay. If not, perhaps you could explain please. If this is all a secret to the public except for one book that is not widely available, then maybe there is no need and no possibility for an encyclopedia article. -- do ncr  am  15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. She founded a religious order. I think that's enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , the problem with that argument is that she attempted to found a religious order (strictly speaking congregation or institute, not order, but it hasn't been established, but merely recognized as what were then called Pious Unions and since 1983 Associations of the faithful. Establishing an actual religious congregation might make one notable, especially if it was of pontifical rite, but establishing an association of the faithful is unlikely to do so. Furthermore, we still have no independent sources for verifiability of the woman or her "order".--Jahaza (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: This AFD was just relisted. I would grab the opportunity to formally add the order's article to the AFD, but it was not the nominator's original intention to delete it, and it is late and it would be a bit of a bother to update all the notices.  However there has been some substantial discussion since some "votes" and now participants could also comment regarding the other article.  It may be too late for a consensus to emerge to do anything about the order article, but perhaps some comments will show whether a separate AFD for it is warranted?  Anyhow I suggest participants could return and confirm or change their initial vote, plus comment/vote on the order article.  Pinging all participants: . Ideally, "Votes" would be to:  "Keep both", "Delete nun page but Keep order page", or "Delete both". -- do  ncr  am  21:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Both article on Mother Maria into the religious order. Her article currently lacks independent, reliable sources to prove notability for its own article.  I was inclined to suggest merging Mother Maria into the article on the pious union, but there are not any independent reliable sources supporting that article either.-- danntm T C 02:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep both articles, important notable religious topics, likely to be localised offline RS rather than internet spam. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete both articles. Although they may be notable, there aren't enough reliable, independent sources in the article, or on the internet to prove their notability, or to establish a better article. — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 23:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability is based on appearances in reliable and independent sources. In the case of this particular nun and her order, there really isn't enough that's been brought to the table to demonstrate that she meets the criteria.  The article can be undeleted easily enough if someone can actually find some of the offline sources that the "Keep" votes here are cheerfully asserting should exist.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC).

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The book notes: "Por el contrario, en la vecina diócesis de Tacámbaro, desde principios de la década de los años setenta, comenzó a adquirir renombre un culto popular alrededor de unas supuestas apariciones en el poblado de Puruarán. Al parecer, en el origen del desarrollo de este culto se encuentra mezclada la participación de una antigua religiosa llamada María Concepción Zúñiga o Mary Conzuló. Proveniente de Zamora, donde había tenido una casa de religiosas, en 1964 llegó a Chilapa y pidió formar una pía unión en compañía de otras mujeres. Allí, con el apoyo del obispo local, de reconocida filiación conservadora, comenzó a editar una revista titulada Estrella.[161] Posteriormente, en 1968, abandonaría la diócesis para establecerse con sus 'Mínimas Franciscanas del Perpetuo Socorro' en la Villa de Guadalupe. Ya desde 1971 la mencionada revista había llamado la atención de la curia del arzobispado, pues la señorita María Concepción Zúñiga (Mary Conzuló) difundía unos 'Mensajes de Jesucristo' que según ella recibía del mismo Jesucristo. El arzobispo primado, cardenal Miguel Darío Miranda, le prohibió publicar la revista y se negó a aceptarla a ella y a su 'Obra' en el arzobispado de México.[162] Seguaramente debido a las anteriores presiones, después de algunos años decidió trasladarse a Puruarán. Allí, alrededor de un culto reciente relativo a unas supuestas apariciones de la Virgen en una ermita, Mary Conzuló su posición de manera notable, gracias al apoyo del párroco integrista del lugar, Nabor Cárdenas. Dichas apariciones fueron tempranamente declaradas falsas por el obispo del Tacámbaro, José Abraham Martínez, las que describió como 'fruto de mentes que padecen alucinaciones y anhelos de cosas sobrenaturales'.[163] Además, el obispo declaró que el principal propagador de este engaño era el párroco del lugar, a quien se le había amonestado en repetidas veces: [quote]" Here is the translation from Google Translate: "By contrast, in the neighboring diocese of Tacambaro, since the early seventies, he began to gain kudos as a popular cult around some alleged apparitions in the town of Puruarán. Apparently the origin of the development of this cult is mixed participation of an ancient religious called Maria Concepcion Zuniga or Mary Conzuló. From Zamora, where he had a nunnery in 1964 he reached Chilapa and asked to form a pious union in the company of other women. There, with the support of the local bishop, recognized conservative affiliation, he began editing a magazine called Star. [161] Later in 1968, would leave the diocese to settle down with his 'Franciscan Minimum of Perpetual Help' in the Villa de Guadalupe. Since 1971 that magazine had called the attention of the curia of the archbishopric, as Miss Maria Concepcion Zuniga (Mary Conzuló) spread about 'Messages of Jesus Christ' which she received from Jesus Christ himself. The archbishop, Cardinal Miguel Dario Miranda, forbade him to publish the magazine and refused to accept her and her 'work' in the archbishopric of Mexico. [162] Seguaramente due to the above pressures, after some years decided to move to Puruarán. There, about a recent cult relating to the alleged apparitions of the Virgin in a chapel, Mary Conzuló its position significantly, with the support of fundamentalist parish priest, Nabor Cardenas. Such occurrences were earlier declared are false by the bishop of Tacambaro, José Abraham Martinez, which he described as 'fruit of minds suffering from hallucinations and dreams of supernatural things.' [163] In addition, the bishop declared that the principal propagator of this deception was the parish priest, who had cautioned him repeatedly: [quote]"  The book notes: "The Paul VI Conspiracy Theory Today, a Google search for the words 'Paul VI' and 'impostor' reveals dozens of websites, many of them created by Baysider groups, which claim that the true Paul VI was regularly drugged by communists, Freemasons, Satanists, or other conspirators and replaced by an impostor created by means of plastic surgery. Some conspiracy theorists support this claim with photographs from different points in Paul VI's career and sonograms comparing the voice of Paul VI with that of the alleged impostor. To skeptics, this evidence is not compelling and the pope simply appears to be aging over time. For believers, the merit of this theory is not really derived from empirical evidence but a network of Marian seers all of whom have received revelations of a papal impostor. The original provenance of the theory is unknown and it is impossible to say if it began with a single seer and was borrowed by others, or if multiple seers arrived at this claim independently. The earliest iteration of this theory I have found comes from a Mexican nun named Maria Concepcion Zuniga Lopez. Lopez received messages from heaven that were published and attributed to her pseudonym 'Portavoz.' On January 21, 1970, Portavoz delivered a message from Jesus announcing, 'Paul VI suffers! Do not leave him alone in his prison. Go in search of him, take him to a safe place where he can speak freely.' In 1975, Clemente Dominguez Gomez, a seer in Palmar de Troy, Spain, declared that the man claiming to be Paul VI was an impostor and that the true pope was imprisoned. A few months later Lueken outlined a similar conspiracy theory in a locution given before her followers. ..." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow María Concepción Zúñiga López to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to give people time to evaluate the sources found by -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2016 (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.