Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redemptorists of Australia and New Zealand


 * 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 speedy keep per withdrawal by nominator. Bongo matic  23:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Redemptorists of Australia and New Zealand

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Google search (not perfect, I know) generated fifteen unique (non-redundant) hits. Of these, there was not a single one that was independent other than the Wikipedia entry and clones. And even the Wikipedia ones cannot be said to be independent as the article was penned by User:RedemptoristAus. Bongo matic  15:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- I admit there are problems, but I suspect that there will also be problems if we merge this and replace it with a small section in an article on a worldwide order. There is currently a "COI" tag at the foot of the page.  I would suggest that we keep it and tag it also for lack of independent sources and any other concerns, and see if the creator will address them.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Assuming that the claim that this is a province of the Redemptorists is true, it should have its own article, however this article is not good - stubbify or better, rescue. Springnuts (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the notability criterion you are using here? The main problem with this article is the total lack of any independent coverage, not the COI/POV. Bongo  matic  19:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response. Common sense basically - in the same way that all royalty are notable, so, imo, is a Redemptorist province - assuming it does actually exist of course. Therefore, imo, the least it deserves is a stubby article.  I have flagged it for rescue.  It being Christmas day I am not going now to look for sources, but I suggest that lack of google-hits is not the end of the matter here :) Springnuts (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The laundry list of activities is nonencylopedic and the fact that there are no third party sources referring to the group (province or not) indicate that it is non-notable. Not all chapters, subdivisions, subgroups, etc. of something notable are automatically notable. Notability is not inherited. Bongo  matic  04:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response It took five minutes to find and source the first Rector of the North Perth monastery. Try some more google searches: "St Gerard’s" Monastery  "New Zealand"; Redemptorists  "New Zealand" etc ... I guarantee there is more to find.  Springnuts (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There seems to be a 200 page book published on the subject: There are also several online sources - I've added a couple. -- Avenue (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And a similar book about the NZ side, cited here:  -- Avenue (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2008 (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.