Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter D. Robinson


 * 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 redirect to United Episcopal Church of North America. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Peter D. Robinson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No refs on the page, almost impossible to find any references anywhere - never mind decent length independent secondary sources - which show this individual is notable. Page reads like it is a CV and I note that many of the edits were made by IP. If detail is needed at all about this guy, it should be noted on the page of his denomination not in this self-congratulatory way. WP:BASIC WP:RESUME JMWt (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, as the head of a small Anglican communion. Note that his predecessor  Presiding Bishop of the United Episcopal Church of North America (UECNA) is bluelinked, despite lack of sources. Nom User:JMWt may be unaware of this convention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)  changing iVoteE.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hard to say that he meets any of those criteria - he is not the bishop of a major denomination, he is not the head of a large protestant denomination or a chief rabbi. The denomination is small, in no sense major or large. Again, I'm perfectly happy to see a section on the denominational page about him - but surely makes no sense to have an unsourced and probably unsourceable page about every detail of every leader of every denomination. For one thing, that'd be open season for people to write pages about themselves that cannot be checked. JMWt (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On the previous leader, I don't find that page so objectionable. It seems to me that any statement needs to be referenced, and a minor religious figure is very unlikely to have sufficient references available to reference.  Of course, if Peter Robinson has written this page (which seems likely), he knows that the details about himself are correct - but we have no way of checking any of them. A page of a few paras might make sense, but I'd still argue that'd be better done on the denominational page. JMWt (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (changing iVote to redirect, see below)  Honestly, I don't think Anglicanism has been so contentious since the reign of Charles I.  There are, it seems, no fewer than 5 small, contending secessionist denominations in similar relationship to the old mainline Episcopal Church (United States) .  I added a source or 2 to the article on this one, the  United Episcopal Church of North America, and there are more sources that can be added, but it appears to have been a thing about 30 years ago, but to have shriveled into a much smaller denomination.  I cannot source the article on Bishop Robinson with secondary sources, so I think we can delete this and leave him to the single sentence he has at the article on the United Episcopal Church of North America page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. But that's not a strong reason for deletion in-and-of-itself, one could be the head of a small religious group and be noted. To me the critical thing here is that he's not noted in any significant way in independent secondary sources and therefore isn't notable. JMWt (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, we keep many articles on Bishops who cannot be sourced, except for the fact of having been a Bishop. We keep them even if no other sources exist when Churches are part of the Anglican Communion, which the United Episcopal Church of North America is not.  So I think the question becomes how major a group is UECNA?  There is a tendency for small Pentecostal and other Christian groups, even very small ones consisting of a preacher in a single rented storefront church, to declare themselves as new Churches, make up a fancy title (the Great church of God in North America, or whatever), and declare the sole preach a "Bishop." "Bishops" of this sort get deleted, or covered if the sources support it, but they do not get pages under CLERGYOUTCOMES.  Robinson, however, is Bishop of a denomination that broke off from a larger church.  According to the 1987 Washington Post article I added to the UECNA page, there were 20 churches in the movement in 1987.  That probably passes the bar at CLERGYOUTCOMES.  But the UECNA appears to have shrunk since then.  In my view, if we can establish that the UECNA is a significant thing, then he can have a  page. If we cannot, then he can have a page only if it is supported under the usual WP:GNG rules.  (His page, of course, would need to be cut back to name, rank, serial number, and only whatever else can be reliably sourced.)  I do expect that other editors with experience in this area will weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that it is possible to put too much weight on OUTCOMES when they're supposed to be descriptive not prescriptive. The reason that leaders of larger denominations are notable is that they're more likely to be noted in independent secondary sources and more likely to have a range of possible references to call upon with regard to facts in the article. I think it is circular to say that a page should or shouldn't be kept because of CLERGYOUTCOMES. JMWt (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We keep them on the same principle that has us keep pages on all members of elected legislatures on a provincial or higher level. And it's actually surprising how often they get sourced or link to, eventually.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep -- As far as I can make out he is the head of one of the splinter denominations of the American episcopal church. The fact that posts were vacant before he took them up speaks for itself as to the status of the denomination.  If not kept, this should be merged/redirected to the denomination.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted to increase participation.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted for other participants to discuss on Redirect proposal
 * Redirect to United Episcopal Church of North America where he is already mentioned with an appropriate description. No need to merge any copy since there were was no independent sourcing on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect I agree with E.M.Gregory. He's sufficiently notable for a redirect, but I see no coverage/sourcing of him beyond the (splinter) church to justify an independent article at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2017 (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.