Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Holy Trinity Seminary (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Opinion is divided, but the "keep" arguments are notably weaker, arguing only that the organization or people associated with it are "notorious". That may be so, but our guidelines such as WP:GNG require reliable sources to establish any such notoriety, and the "keep" side doesn't provide them. I will create a redirect to Donald Sanborn#Most Holy Trinity Seminary, as proposed at the end, in my individual capacity as an editor. I don't see much that is sourced and could be merged. Sandstein 10:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most Holy Trinity Seminary

edit
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Most Holy Trinity Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am dubious about the notability of this institution. Lack of high quality sources. (Note, that there are other unrelated institutions with a similar name, e.g. the Missionary Servants of the Most Holy Trinity's Seminary in Monroe, Virginia; so, when searching for references, you have to be careful that they are about this institution and not one of those others.) SJK (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 14:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: "but it does exist" – isn't that simply WP:ITEXISTS? As far as I can tell, this is a tiny institution run by a tiny sect of ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholics which have split away from the mainstream Roman Catholic church. (There are other, far more larger and notable splinter sects than this particular one, such as SSPX and SSPV – this particular one doesn't even seem to have a name as such, but its leaders used to belong to SSPV and then had some falling out with them and left.) I can't find any discussions of this seminary in reliable sources. (At least one of their staff – Anthony Cekada – is arguably notable, since some of his writings have been influential among Catholic traditionalists, but the reliable sources which discuss that do so without discussing this institution.) All the refs in the article are to non-reliable and non-independent sources. If reliable sources haven't paid any attention to this institution/group, then it doesn't meet the notability requirements for an article. SJK (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that sometimes it is useful to have articles on such small institutions so that WP can show how insignificant they are. An alternative might be to merge and redirect to the article on this particular Catholic splinter denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; your proposal seems to be that an institution which is so obscure that reliable sources entirely ignore it deserves an article so people can learn how insignificant it really is, but that proposal seems to be against the spirit (and letter) of GNG rather than in conformance with it. (I might decide to open a "seminary" in my garage – even if I create a website for it, does it deserve a Wikipedia article just to demonstrate how insignificant the seminary in my garage is?). An article with no high quality references – should the reader infer the topic is so marginal that high quality references don't exist for it, or that high quality references exist but no Wikipedia editor has yet found them? Since the reader can't tell which of the two is the case (without researching the topic themselves), such an article can't really serve your proposed purpose of demonstrating the insignificance of its subject. SJK (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rector, Donald Sanborn, and Father Anthony Cekada, are notorious. 67.79.171.130 (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NOTINHERIT, even if its rector and one of its professors are notable, that doesn't automatically make the institution notable. Furthermore, it isn't demonstrated that either Sanborn or Cekada are themselves notable. Labelling them as "notorious" doesn't suffice for notability – notorious to whom? I for one had never heard of Sanborn until I stumbled upon his article on Wikipedia, although I had heard of Cekada before. (But, the vast majority of people, who know nothing about traditional Catholicism, would never have heard of Cekada either.) Notability needs to be demonstrated by reliable sources. I found some reliable sources for Cekada, which maybe is enough for notability, but it is borderline. But I simply can't find anything substantial on Sanborn, which makes me think he isn't notable and his article should be deleted. So, in fact, just now, I nominated his article for deletion as well – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Sanborn. SJK (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The seminary is not terribly notable, but enough for WP to take note of it. Far many more institutions with much less credit have a larger presence here. The fact that some of its members and staff have gained recognition (or notoriety) should be considered since their reputations are linked to the seminary's movement. Den... (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG, Kilopylae, Power~enwiki, Ad Orientem, and TonyBallioni: you all contributed to the discussion at related AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Sanborn (this is the seminary–most likely very small–of which Sanborn is the leader), but have not commented here yet. Maybe you might have something to contribute here? SJK (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. To avoid the possibility of unconscious bias, I have always supported the broadest possible interpretation of the notability standards for religious organizations. Ny only problem is that there seems no information about whether it is large enough to actually be considered established; I am judging it has a real existence on the basis of the photographs on their site in the absence of numerical data, but I do not feel perfectly secure about it. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep My view is like DGG I support a broad interpretation for religious organizations and I will also echo what another voter said above in that this seminary is notable due to the nature of it. I found a few sources here and there which combined with the other stuff make this a keep.JC7V-constructive zone 15:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I have a counter proposal, what if we merged info from this article into the article on Anthony Cekada??? He is associated with the seminary and it might be a decent compromise? JC7V-constructive zone 18:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After going over others comments I believe it should be deleted. I tried to find references from independent sources for this article and I could only find 2 references from reliable sources (Times and Hernando Sun) which are barely passing mentions and show it fails WP:GNG and similar categories. The merge thing I guess wouldn't work either. So I delete is probably the right move. JC7V-constructive zone 19:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just stating that I would also be open to the merge and redirect proposal that was put forth by EM Gregory. I already suggested a merge before but his/her suggestion is better than the merge suggestion i put forth. I still believe it's a delete but his/her idea seems a good ATD. JC7V-talk 17:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is scant reliable source coverage for either article subject. I am not sure if we have enough RS coverage to source a three sentence stub on both of them together. The only way either of these can be kept is if we just chuck GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails WP:NORG (see also WP:NSCHOOL). Insufficient (virtually none) coverage from reliable secondary sources. Cited sources are affiliated and/or fail WP:RS. As written the article grossly fails WP:NPOV and is a blatant WP:COATRACK WP:ADVERT for the beliefs of a fringe schismatic sect. It also falsely claims that they are Roman Catholics. If this is kept w/o improvement in sourcing I will likely stub it to a single sentence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Falsely claims that they are Roman Catholics? You surely have no idea what you are talking about. For one to be a Catholic one must hold what the Church has always taught, to believe in what it defined as "De Fide". Now Bergoglio is denying what the Church had defined as "De Fide", your personal opinion does not count for anything.67.79.171.130 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Ad Orientem. Essentially no coverage from reliable sources (the only independent mention I've seen so far is a glancing mention in relation to a local planning board meeting), which is not surprising for such a tiny institution (their own webpage only lists 5 professors). Per WP:ORGSIG, schools have no inherent notability, and this particular one doesn't meet any standard of notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the attempt to delete this article is not an extension of the Church’s internal conflicts, could the opposing camp be peeking into the subject through an orifice? It seems to me that they seek to validate their anti position with a strict reading of the guidelines at the expense of the broader view of the seminary’s significance. When deleting an article with a current topic, I check for these points: 1) Is it self-promotion or propaganda? 2) Is it irrelevant to the broader issue (i.e., Latin Catholic Church)? 3) Is it ignored in relevant publications? Here is why I think this article passes the test.

Given the language, content and tone we could safely set aside self-promotion, but is it really relevant to the current religious life? Yes, it is relevant because it represents one of the opposing ultra conservative minorities within the largest Christian denomination (i.e., Sedevacantists) at a time when its prevailing liberal ideology is taking a beating from all sides. Even when the institutional powers seek to silent marginal voices, extremes always define each other. To understand the Church’s current ills, for example, we need to understand Vatican II and those fiercely opposing it—even if they seem as if we should live in the past.

But what about coverage? Let’s first define the appropriate outlets for a marginalized and almost dirt-poor Catholic seminary. They are certainly NOT in the mainstream media, which generate our favourite sources of publication. The NYTimes, for example, will pass them over even when its faculty preaches blistering anti-establishment sermons. The matter is different, however, if any is accused of pedophilia. So, as with peripheral movements in all major religions, we need to look at fringe channels of communication: narrowly specialized presses, scholarly journals with limited circulation, self-published books and social networks, the same that have allowed minority groups in general to survive.

In addition to what has already been provided above:

In books from religious presses: here and here. In religious scholarly publications: here, here, here, and here. In self-published books: here and here. In social media: here, here, here, and many more.

There are many more references from WP:RS to some of the faculty in the seminary (like here, here and here). An institution becomes closely linked to its faculty, in both, academia and religious worlds.

Size is important too. When I advocate to keep this article, I am not suggesting we should expand it. Its present small size matches its significance. Den... (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/saying-good-bye-our-alma-mater
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FxqJmTfFDk
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NekFfwU-LWs&t=79s
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv1SAtqZnyo&t=939s
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpt_pZoDuhU&t=33s
  6. ^ https://muse.jhu.edu/article/685456/summary
  7. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=8OL9tyvN5YcC&pg=PA114
  8. ^ https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2265-why-traditionalists-are-not-afraid-of-sedevacantism
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Most_Holy_Trinity_Seminary_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=865047748"