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 delete. Rough consensus is to delete: Two of the "keep" opinions are expressed as weak, and none point to any reliable sources covering this person in some detail, which is what we need for any article and certainly for a
WP:BLP. Sandstein 08:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
This bishop of an extremely small sect doesn't have the necessary
notability, as it lacks reliable independent sources (I guess the best, if not the only one, is
this which mentions him briefly).
Fram (
talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)reply
It has an article in
Dutch and
Italian. If they weren't deleted at all, this shouldn't be. It is not an extremely small sect. Though it is not big, the
IMBC is definitely not a small sect. Also, if it is, why do
Donald Sanborn and
Daniel Dolan not have their articles deleted, if their number of chapels are fewer compared to all IMBC chapels? I have tried to add more sources, including the one you mentioned, hope it suffices.
King Pius (
talk) 13:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I think that is more of an
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. There are a whole number of Traditionalist and independent Catholic organizations, with many leaders saying that they are bishops. I think a stronger argument would be how much coverage Geert Stuyver has received.
Donald Sanborn is not the leader of a particularly large congregation but he is well known in the Sedevacantist and traditional Catholic community.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 15:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Donald Sanborn is well known in the Sedevacantist and traditional Catholic community because of the fact that the traditional Catholic community in the United States is somewhat noisy. IMBC operates in Western Europe, Hungary, and Argentina. Also, it's not as if Bp. Stuyver is that unknown. A fair amount of Americans know him because of the 2018 consecration of Bp. Selway. You state "There are a whole number of Traditionalist and independent Catholic organizations, with many leaders saying that they are bishops." He's an acknowledged sede bishop in general. Not unlike many others. He's cooperated with Bp. Sanborn many times. I think this all stems from the fact that the IMBC really is just not that heard of in the US. Another important note: Mexican
Martín Dávila Gandara's page is approved. He is obviously less known and has less chapels than Bp. Stuyver. So I guess the objection that he's not well known should be dropped because it doesn't apply.
King Pius (
talk) 03:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The claim that A fair amount of Americans know him because of the 2018 consecration of Bp. Selway is absurd, almost no Americans care about any consecrations.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 22:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Sorry, must have made it more clear. I meant a fair amount of American sedevacantists/traditionalists. The accusation here is that he is just a shadow of the sedevacantist community(ies), which is false, because he isn't.
King Pius (
talk) 01:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep this article could certainly be improved with more independent sources, but I do think that it does just pass
WP:GNG. Most of the facts in the article are cited, so its mostly just an issue of finding more coverage for the subject.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 15:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I am not sure if this article meets GNG, because I am not sure of the reliability of the sources. However the sourcing is 100 times better than what we have on the vast majority of articles on Catholic bishops, most of which are source to one blog.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Johnpacklambert: The issue here is that technically Stuyver is not a Roman Catholic bishop as commonly understood. Sedevacantists (to whom he belongs) are a minority within a larger minority of Catholic who reject Vatican II, who themselves are a subgroup of
Traditionalist Catholicism who in turn form a subgroup of Catholicism! Stuyver and other Sedevacantist bishops lead denominations that are at most a few thousand. Perhaps an example that you might be familiar with is if that an article about a Mormon leader comes up on Wikipedia, but not in the well known
Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, but rather in the extreme splinter group
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. So the question of notability should be determined by the coverage Stuyver has received rather than him just being a bishop.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 05:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Stop with your pejorative refering to modern people with the name of an ancient prophet. I can not hear you through your use of the wrong terminology any more than an African-American could hear you through the use of the term Negro. That said, yet I know he is part of a splinter break away group, but that does not change the fact we rubber stamp keep articles with atrocious sourcing. We need to expand the BLP prod procedures to other types of articles, because right now people will double down on an article that has sat for 14 years with no sources at all and remove a prop from that article without adding any sources. Wikipedia needs to solve the unsource problem now.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Please I didn't mean any harm, and there is nothing in the
article that says it's a prejogative. My apology if the term caused you distress. Anyway I don't see what any of this has to do with the deletion discussion, so good day.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 02:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 08:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak keep -- Yes this is a splinter group. I have no idea how large, but suspect that it is small. I note that he celebrates in a chapel (not a church) and in three chapels elsewhere. I approach this on the basis that he is a leader of a small denomination. We have articles on the principle of sedevacantalism, but not on this as a Catholic denomination. It looks as if he has episcopal oversight of several congregations. If so, I think deletion inappropriate, but only by a narrow margin.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Here's a link listing Mass centers of IMBC so you don't need to suspect.
https://www.sodalitium.biz/sante-messe/ You said we don't have an article on "this Catholic denomination". I don't know what you mean by this. Are you referring to this article on
Istituto Mater Boni Consilii? How does he look "as if he has episcopal oversight of several congregations"? Which congregations are you talking about? He heads the IMBC. Where did you get that he heads others? Can you clarify more?
King Pius (
talk) 14:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as a member of an obscure sect, the presumption of notability for
Roman Catholic bishops does not apply. Several of the sources are to the sect's website, and the "Centro Studi La Runa" reference only trivially mentions him.
WP:GNG does not appear to be met. I suppose a redirect to
Istituto Mater Boni Consilii is a possibility, but I don't see enough coverage to even justify that.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 22:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The accusation that he lacks notability since he is a sedevacantist does not count, because bishops
Donald Sanborn,
Martín Dávila Gandara, and
Clarence Kelly have their Wikipedia pages alive with no issues. Bishops
Daniel Dolan and
Mark Pivarunas also have their Wikipedia pages. About the sources, I think the problem has been fixed. I think it's sufficient, and if it's somewhat lacking, it can be supplied in the future, just like in a lot of articles. I'm fine with having a template attached, but it shouldn't be deleted because it will make Wikipedia extremely ever inconsistent.
King Pius (
talk) 01:51, 10 March 2021 (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.