Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Rome


 * 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Methodist Rome

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that Methodist Rome was ever a nickname for Toronto; suspected case of citogenesis RogerSheaffe (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

[Reposting comments from AfD's talk page] This article was created (with no sources cited) in 2004, but there appears to be no evidence that Toronto was ever commonly referred as the 'Methodist Rome' in the late C19/early C20. All online sources I could find post-date (and appear to be derived from) the Wikipedia article – seems like a case of citogenesis or circular referencing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents The paucity of evidence for the 'Methodist Rome' moniker was recently highlighted and discussed on Twitter by 12:36, a Toronto online news site; numerous respondents were unable to find any pre-wiki evidence for the appellation. I personally have trawled historic newspaper databases and found absolutely no corroboration for the nickname. The only evidence that has yet surfaced is from Robertson Davies's 'What's bred in the bone', first published in 1985, in which a character refers to Toronto as 'a city sometimes called "the Rome of Methodism"' (p.148). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BLkLAQAAMAAJ&dq=robertson+davies+%22rome+of+methodism%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22rome+of+methodism%22 This is the only known evidence for the phrase – and a slightly different version at that. But it was written in the late twentieth century in a work of fiction, and is hardly a justification for an entire wikipedia page based on the claim that 'Methodist Rome' was a common moniker for Toronto. If anyone else has evidence suggesting the nickname 'Methodist Rome' was in actual use in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, I'd happily stand corrected. But otherwise this looks like a case of citogenesis and I suggest the page be deleted.RogerSheaffe (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Delete I'm pretty sure you went deep enough down the rabbit hole to figure out that this article is a hoax. Speedy Delete this article since hoaxes are not tolerated on Wikipedia. 344917661X (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And move the page to List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. 344917661X (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which speedy deletion criterion are you suggesting this meets, ? And on what basis are you suggesting this is a hoax, bearing in mind that the page to which you linked recognizes that a mere factual error does not qualify as a hoax? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess you are right about the factual error part, but I believe that articles, which are identified as hoaxes or factual errors should be speedily deleted to protect the encyclopedia and the world from misinformation. 344917661X (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're calling for speedy deletion, then which criterion does it meet? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * G3 for speedy deletion criteria. I know that it might just be a factual error, but it could be a blatant hoax. I'll check the edit history of the user who created the article to see if I find anything suspicious. 344917661X (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if it were a hoax (and you seem to have suggested it isn't in saying I guess you are right about the factual error part), it also has to meet the standard of "blatant". How is "might be" and "blatant" not inherently contradictory in this context? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I found out that it likely isn't a blatant hoax. 344917661X (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, Toronto being called Methodist Rome was featured as a "fact" on the Did you know part of the Main Page on October 18, 2004 according to the article's talk page. 344917661X (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the fact that it was on DYK is of any relevance to the question of whether the article qualifies under WP:G3. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to mention it. 344917661X (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The creator SimonP doesn't seem to be suspicious at all, which means that the article is likely just a factual error, as such, I have removed the speedy part in my vote. Although I think we should notify the user on his talk page about the deletion. 344917661X (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - if this is a factual error rather than a hoax, that is still grounds for deleting it. Vorbee (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just delete unless someone can provide a pre-2004 source using the term. The alternative might be to repurpose it to Methodism in Toronto, as the content (apart from the title) is based on books from academic publishers.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Probably something sourced to "gossip" in the halcyon days of the project.  I've found nothing online, including at a Canadian newspaper database (1863-1926) at .  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - hoax indeed ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 12:31, 14 August 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.