Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Paul in Britain


 * 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, but this article is screaming out for critical commentary (which exists in the refs already cited) and removal of the WP:FRINGE POV.  Spinning Spark  23:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Saint Paul in Britain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essentially a recreation of the deleted Coelbren_Rhodd. Which was recreated by Bedson immediately following the last AfD: Articles for deletion/Coelbren Rhodd (see as well). It was confirmed to be spurious by an independent expert by someone at FTN, but this can't be pointed out except through OR and SYN. As far as I can see, it contains much of the same material, and I don't see what has come to light to allow for it's recreation against the old consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article was created with a different scope as a result of that afd on the suggestion of multiple involved editors, precisely because the reasons for deleting "Coelbren Rhodd" do not apply to this book. Now you're taking it even further, guilt by association, without even giving new reasons specific to this article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Beat me to it again. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable religious movement (Neo-druidism). Also, The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 23:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Apart from blatant notability. Anyone reading the previous deletion discussion will see that the proposer of that deletion (Mangoe) is the editor who suggested the creation and merge with this article, not me. I just accepted the suggestion. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 23:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see where he suggested that? The consensus at the AfD was that the article be deleted. Not merged elsewhere, or changed into a different article. Can you show which source you think gives the most significant coverage? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * diff shows this was indeed a suggestion of Mangoe, though not necessarily a recommendation. Thincat (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Essentially a deleted article recreated using a different name. No real improvements have been made, and the subject remains immenently non-notable as per the previous AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You know that admins can still see the deleted article, and can easily verify that it is entirely a different article, different scope, right? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure paragraphs three and four are from, or based on, the pre-AfD Coelbren Rhodd. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see Dougweller (an admin), has removed them as being a merge from the deleted article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge  - whatever the history, we have here an interesting and prima facie noteworthy article on a serious topic. We have numerous reliable, independent sources. While WP must not be used as a platform for fringe theories, it is entirely right that such theories be described here. It is difficult to see how any decision other than Keep is possible here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a spurious piece. But that it's pseudohistory can't be pointed out without original research . It can never be portrayed neutrally without OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to author's article. If it is notable, it is barely notable and was IMHO created to reuse the material from the deleted article. It concentrates on that rather than on the content discussed by mainstream sources, and it doesn't even mention the book's alternative name, "The origin of British as opposed to Papal Christianity". It used sources which didn't back the claims, which I've removed. It doesn't seem substantive enough to have its own article and I can't see any reason for a separate article as it can easily be included into the article on its author, Richard Williams Morgan, which clearly needs more material and only mentions this book as one of Morgan's publications. It would fit very well there and I don't understand why those calling for it to be kept haven't noticed that. I see the same problem with Coelbren y Beirdd, another fringe article which should never have been created but should have been included in Iolo Morganwg's article. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replaced Günther Thomann's key source in a general context for now, and opened a discussion about his credentials as an expert for consideration to replace the text about his opinion of it as an important book in the development of Neo-Celtic Christianity on the article talk page. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Richard Williams Morgan. It's useful to have the redirect but I don't see the point in a discussion at any length of this book's crackpot content. Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: If texts that are important in Neo-Druidism are officially considered as "crackpot", is that like tantamount to saying wikipedia is participating in the marginalization of Neo-Druids and their beliefs? Or does it go as far as making this an officially proscribed belief or heresy? or just one whose important texts should not receive any articles or coverage for those trying to research their viewpoint. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a heresy against history: Morgan's theory of a outside-the-Roman-church transmission of Christianity simply isn't what happened. One of the reasons he makes such a mess of the neo-druidic material is because he is abusing Morganyg's fictions to an entirely different end; Morgan's inclusion of this supposed catechism is, after all, in the interests of advocating his own theory of the Christian church, and not really to say anything, well, truthful about actual druids. If Neo-druidism has a problem with the origin of this material, I can't help them with that. Also, I don't see how my opinion, expressed on a talk page, adds up to any thing "official". Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Heresy against history"??? Let's see.... There is a Catholic view of history.... there is a Protestant view of history... There are many other discrepant views of history too, including this one (Morgan's) apparently.  I thought that all this was largely the reason it was decided, in the beginning, to make wikipedia a "neutral" project - where resources on all viewpoints were welcome for those trying to understand them. To speak of declaring viewpoints that exist today as "heresy" and then to have that personal vantagepoint endorsed and enshrined by a "neutral" project, really begs the question of what we are all supposed to be doing here, doesn't it? It seems like some are here to authoritatively arbitrate what existing beliefs are permissible, and what beliefs are to be regarded as "heresy", so perhaps we may as well admit we are the New Council of Nicea, since that's exactly  what their role was. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're going to take that line, I am not interested in further interaction. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to RWM (I prefer merge). WP:NPOV says "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." We do not use divine guidance or unpublished experts to adjust to our personal opinions. The existence of the article should depend on notability and verification, not on the impossibility of neutrality without OR. Thincat (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. If an article can never be neutral, we should not have it. Neutrality isn't optional as a goal. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I see the material which was subverting the last AfD was removed . I'd be ok with a merge as well since the neutrality issues can be dealt with. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still strongly supporting the keep with the Thomann source pivotal regarding the notability guideline on it's impact on a religious movement. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've created the British church as a result of this discussion. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 03:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've also created pages for Gunther Thomann, Charles Isaac Stevens and Leon Chechemian to explain the movement better. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 16:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep looks well sourced to me. Many more source I expect to be in print and unsearchable. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2012 (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.