Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Episcopal Church


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Open Episcopal Church

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The Open Episcopal Church is a small group with no recognition whatsoever from any Christian mainline denonimations. Their leaders are widely considered to be "episcopi vagantes" and nothing of notice can be said about them. Furthermore, the creator of the page appears to be one of the leaders of the Open Episcopal Church, which makes me think that this is more of a publicity stunt than anything else. I move for deletion. Karma1998 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Karma1998 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes the Roman Catholic church might not like them, but that is not a reason for deletion, and the nominator's assertion that "nothing of notice can be said about them" is clearly not true, as plenty of notice has been written in the article. Both of the sources that I added before contesting WP:PROD deletion are independent and reliable and have significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * they're unrecognised by everyone, not just the Catholic Church. They are a small fringe group and certainly do not meet WP:NCHURCH.Karma1998 (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NCHURCH says that a religious denomination must meet the general notability guideline. It has been demonstrated that this one does. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity,  and United Kingdom.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge all of these to a List of episcopi vagantes. BD2412  T 21:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What sources do you base that description on? The nominator writes "are widely considered" but I don't think that the description is accepted anywhere outside the Roman Catholic church, and even there no sources have been offered for it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * as far as I know, the Open Episcopal Church is not recognised as legitimate by neither the Catholic Church, nor the Anglican Communion, nor GAFCON, nor the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, nor any of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, nor any mainline Protestant groups. Thus, they are episcopi vagantes.-Karma1998 (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes by sources, such as the ones cited in this article that demonstrate a pass of the general notability guideline, not "as far as I know", which is known as original research. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have sources demonstrating that the OEC has some recognition by some mainline denomination, please insert them into the article. I haven't found any.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But none of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies has "is not recognised by a major denomination" as a reason for deletion. The applicable guideline is WP:GNG, which this easily passes. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the additions by Phil Bridger therefore passing WP:GNG. Whether the church has been recognised by other churches is irrelevant if it passes WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep At this time, there are 27 references in the article. I did a quick lookup on newspapers.com and found more RS that are not in the article. This article meets WP:GNG,meets WP:NCHURCH. It meets them easily. Wikipedia is ruled by it's own policies and guidelines, not those of the Catholic church or any other religious organization. — Jacona (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * could you please explain why you and keep mentioning the Catholic Church? I haven't mentioned it. The word "episcopi vagantes" is not necessarily connected to the Catholic Church, it's also used scholarly.--Karma1998 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Karma1998, You mentioned the Catholic Church in this edit. I was using it rather vaguely. It doesn't matter if every church in the world recognizes or doesn't recognize this one. It has no bearing on their notability. I don't care if they are a vagante, a vagrant, or a vacant look; what matters is whether there are reliable sources. There are, and so it meets GNG, whether it's a recognized church or an unrecognized doughnut or whatever it may be. — Jacona (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: No assertion of notability, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NRELORG. UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No assertion is necessary as it clearly has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Independent, The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "assertion of notability"? The article cites significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which is a clear assertion of Wikipedia's definition of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: I can find sufficient substantial coverage in numerous trustworthy sites. WP:GNG is passed. Tictictoc (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2022 (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.