- 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 00:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Southern Episcopal Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not meet notability standards, extant only in primary sourcing from the church itself and a reference in a single comprehensive list of ecclesial bodies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I must confess I don't know what "repertoriates" means. StAnselm (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Veverve (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Only two sources cannot be considered as "multiple" (unless "multiple" is understood as 'more than one', which is obviously unlikely to be the meaning it is given in this policy). Veverve (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Two good sources is "multiple," whether or not that applies in this case is a matter for discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, "multiple" has always meant "more than one". StAnselm (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here's multiple:
- See corporate annual report at https://tnbear.tn.gov/Ecommerce/FilingDetail.aspx?CN=251123173026023201003090206059001040041195046179
- denominational website at https://southernepiscopal.us/
- sample parish at https://www.sacredheartepiscopal.org/
- and listing at http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html Soleecitor (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Soleecitor: none of those sources can qualify as reliable secondary sources that have a "significant coverage" (WP:GNG; see WP:TRIVIALMENTION) of the topic; none of those sources can establish or support the topic's notability. The first is a Business Entity Detail, the second and third are primary, the fourth one is a random website with a list making a trivial mention of the group. Veverve (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We should consider if Soleecitor has a connect to this group following comments here and in the article talk on a supposed break off from this group. ~ Pbritti (talk)
- Delete for dearth of sources. The only third-party mention I could find online was the article that Veverve found. The church may merit a mention in Continuing Anglican movement, but not its own article. Jdcompguy (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per StAnselm; it is documented in two high quality sources. –Zfish118⋉talk 22:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the secondary sources identified in this discussion, Meltons Encyclopaedia and the academic paper, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- According to the church's website, there are several dioceses, so that this is not a mere local church masquerading as a denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.