Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myanmar Council of Churches


 * 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. When the notability of an unsourced article is challenged, the only thing that a Keep voter can do is present sources that satisfy GNG. That hasn't been done here, so I must ignore the Keep votes in this discussion.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 15:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Myanmar Council of Churches

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Was deprodded by user who deprodded several such because these organizations might be notable, but as that person didn't add any sources and concerns are not resolved, I am bringing it to AfD. The Council of Churches is not a church but an organizaton made up of churches. I didn't find sig coverage on the organization. My PROD statement was: "Non-notable religious organization. BEFORE completed. Please add good sources if you deprod or the article will go to AfD. Thank you." Please see AfD that took place for a related organization: Articles for deletion/National Council of Churches of Nepal to see how a discussion might progress/stall. Happy to change my vote if significant, independent sourcing can be *found* (not just the "sources *could exist* argument, please). Thanks! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: This appears to meet WP:GNG. The MCC is the ecumenical organization in Myanmar parallel to the National Council of Churches in the United States. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing one organization to another is in lists of arguments the avoid in deletion discussions, isn't it? And no offense meant, but have you read the GNG? Because it says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." No sig coverage here, so no GNG, unless you're sitting on sourcing. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Obviously keep -- Christianity is a minority religion among the ethnic Burmese, but the majority among several ethnic minorities. This is the national member of the World Council of Churches, which should be enough for it to be kept.  It needs tagging as a stub, not deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why we have the article Christianity in Myanmar. Which may well need major improvement. Christianity being a notable religion in Myanamar, does not prove that every Christian organization in Myanamar is notable. We need sources about this, not just claims it is notable just because it exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * National membership of the World Council of Churches should be enough to establish notability. Rathfelder (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How so? Got a link to policy on how one organization being a member of another establishes notability? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete unless people can present some actual sources showing actual coverage. I know that several ethnic groups in Myanmar are majority CHristian, but no one has even presented evidence that the Christian Churches that the Karens, Nagas and other majority Christian ethnic groups in Myanmar belong to even affiliate with this group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments: There is a problem we should probably not be guilty of advancing as for as just deletion. A junta has resulted in total control of many areas of the country, open persecution of churches, and a severe restriction on media, since the beginning of 2021. This means there maybe some hindrance to finding any current secondary sources. The World Council of Churches lists the Church of the Province of Myanmar as being "actively involved with other member churches in the Myanmar Council of Churches." Note: There are writings (connected to the organization). I am not sure of the Wikipedia considered reliability of the non-mainstream UCANews (Union of Catholic Asian News), but it includes the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Myanmar as well as the Myanmar Council of Churches. There is Ecumenical Vision of Council of Churches and the Inter-Faith Dialogue. The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) in Asia is affiliated with the Myanmar Council of Churches. The organization is a member of Oikocredit (EDCS UA). There is The Myanmar Baptist Convention, a member of the larger protestant Myanmar Council of Churches that is more passing mention but indicates a larger size. The Myanmar Theological College, Mandalay (MTC) is a member of the Association for Theological Education in Myanmar (for theological education in myanmar/) founded in 1986 by the Myanmar Council of Churches. I am sure there are more. I have not delved into content sourcing versus reliability advancing notability, but it seems that the state of the article does not reflect possible notability. --  Otr500 (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing what you found, Otr. If the article had had sources before 2021 that were now deadlinks, I'd be able to point that kind of issue. But this problem is not unique to the article on the Myanmar Council of Churches. The creator of this article is autopatrolled and doesn't include sources or follow Wikipedia conventions. While I can be sorry Myanmar does not have the freedom of religion that my country has, the English language encyclopedia having such a waste as this doesn't help anything. That's what the World Council of Churches website is meant to be. Thank you for your efforts. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as am seeing enough substantial coverage in the links provided above by OTR500 to enable a pass of WP:GNG and to facilitate the improvement of the article so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * About that "substantial" coverage: Naw, it is insubstantial, as Otr recognizes. Wikilinks and listings of memberships of other interdenominational organizations do not help the notability argument.
 * One of those sources, here, I'm not sure where it was first published. It seems to be primary. Example: "In order to be more effective in inter-faith dialogue with main religions in Myanmar, I believe that we need to concern on the basic principle of inter-faith dialogue. On the other hand, we need to continue our work in doing dialogue and fellowship. We want to move on to engage in our common concerns in especially in the fields of social matters." It's not independent. The author has worked for the Myanmar Council of Churches for years if his LinkedIn is accurate. That's a NO.
 * A legit albeit short article that mentions the Council in the lead and not elsewhere. "The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Myanmar (CBCM) and the Myanmar Council of Churches have appealed to the military for the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other detained leaders while urging them to act in a peaceful way." So this is not significant. NO.
 * The source here, A paper, presented by the Associate General Secretary in Manila in 2008. This is neither independent, nor secondary, nor significant. NO.
 * A directory listing on the World Council of Churches site does nothing. NO.
 * The Frontier Myanmar article just says: "The Myanmar Baptist Convention, a member of the larger protestant Myanmar Council of Churches, estimates its congregation at about 1.6 million people." Not significant. NO.
 * Wikilinks are not to be considered. NO.
 * So, we're still at 0 on coverage. What exactly is worth saving in this article? Why are several people partial to it? All I see is a bias towards including anything to do with Christianity. I find that problematic. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @ I usually have around 30 tabs open when researching articles but was somewhat indisposed. Thank you for your critique of what I quickly found but my intention at the time is more along the lines of what I found versus what I wasn't able to locate. This becomes more critical when there is a government takeover and a blanket thrown over the media.
 * At AFD a "presumption of notability" can be evidenced by several mentions in sources. I DID NOT even think of considering this on any religious (or non-religious) grounds nor have any partiality. I am utterly astonished at your comments "All I see is a bias towards including anything to do with Christianity." Your comments would make one wonder if you have some agenda in excluding material on anything concerning Christianity. Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:NPOV) include assigning weight "in proportion to their prominence". I saw where something like 5.6 to 6.2 % of the population is considered Christians so a minimum amount of coverage is in line with WP:BALANCE. The subject is also a member of the larger Christian Conference of Asia. In 2020 members of the MCC helped fight Covoid 19.
 * It saddens me that, even if well-intentioned, you have slung bias mud with zero proof that seems to be just casting aspersions. I would also like to state, that as for as I know and right or wrong, an editor does not have to give the reasoning for deproding. If I am wrong someone can please correct me as I will look later after work. I will also attempt to look for more sources. I agree that sourcing through the "External links" is insufficient and also not keen on little more than dictionary entries. On a before I attempt to be as thorough as I can be which is why I only made comments thus far. If the Karens, Nagas, and others, (according to belong to churches that are under the umbrella of the MCC which is certainly part of the larger WCC (that gives some in-depth history on the subject), then there is a presumption of notability. The current state of an article may not reflect actual notability. Bear in mind that a certain amount of primary sources are allowed. I did not have the allotted time to dig more in-depth. You have given your opinion so thank you,  --  Otr500 (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Otr, I was responding not to you but to Atlantic306 who did no analysis of what you found and made a quick vote that didn't reflect information presented. It was done for the benefit of the closer, who may take the included analysis of the sources rather than make their own.
 * I thought I was properly complimentary of your efforts, so I was surprised that you would want to accuse me of bias when we agree on so much here. "Your comments would make one wonder if you have some agenda in excluding material on anything concerning Christianity" is quite a different thing than my calling out people in general for voting not in alignment with policy. My vote is aligned with policy. You didn't vote, so you were aligned with policy. But you take my questioning others' votes and say I may be anti anything to do with Christianity? Quite a jump to conclusions.
 * I know how many articles on Christianity topics I've started and how many I've helped survive AfD, so your comments on my apparent bias against "anything concerning Christianity" indicate you are unfamiliar with my work, (which is fine) and made me chuckle, so thank you for the laugh. I always do the work and don't argue towards inclusion without it. I am more of an inclusionist, as JPL and doubtless others can attest, but, no, the dozens of smaller organizations are NOT presumed notable because they make up a large. Absolutely not. And it has nothing to do with the population % that is Christian. Point to it in policy if I have somehow missed that this is how Wikipedia looks at companies.
 * Now that I've been hinted at being biased against anything to do with Christianity, I would like to remind everyone that I am not trying to see the article on Christianity in Myanmar go bye-bye here. That's a different article.
 * Your comment about "you have slung bias mud with zero proof that seems to be just [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]" is out of line, poorly written, and, like the other bias comment you made, may be worthy of striking. This isn't the sort of thing for which there is "proof" but rather "indication"... Even "evidence" is a better term. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, so if you want to accuse me of anything else or reiterate anything (not recommended), take it to my talk page. I've not been very active on WP for several months. Thanks for reminding me what kind of a place it is.
 * Wikipedia would be better served if you'd do the work you say you want to do in finding articles rather than provide this lengthy "but what about you?" response to my comment to someone else. Have a good day! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that we have both had a good laugh I might suggest that a name be included after comments such as "All I see is a bias towards including anything to do with Christianity." They are under the material I provided (not arguing as not significant coverage) but it would be advisable to "try" to refrain from these types of comments no matter who they are directed at.


 * Delete: Per Nom. I have so far found no "substantial coverage" in secondary sources. Because the WCC may be notable does not mean the MCC inherits any notability. Fails WP:ORG. Because there is a list does not mean everything on that list is notable. I began looking at this because it seemed suspect that an organization that has been around since 1949, being involved or spearheading such things as: Myanmar Council of Churches (MCC) community Based Malaria Prevention and Control Project (passing mention in the "Project Title"), might be notable but news sources do not appear to exist and newsworthy does not necessarily transmit to notability. I could find nothing in books either. This is a country/regional organization that has little more than a dictionary entry, sourced not unlike National Council of Churches in Pakistan (1948) with World Council of Churches one-source, Council of Churches of Malaysia (rather large start-class unsourced article), the very poorly sourced C-class Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, the also equally poorly sourced National Council of Churches in the Philippines, the unsourced and likely wrongly titled Te Runanga Whakawhanaunga I Nga Hahi O Aotearoa, the unsourced National Council of Churches in Bangladesh, as well as other articles either not sourced, one-sourced, or so poorly sourced as to fail to show notability. Maybe some area's "closed-door policies" prove a hindrance to finding any mainstream sources, but there needs to be more. I am an "inclusionist" by verifiable (not just on the article) notability.  --  Otr500 (talk) 08:31, 27 July 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.