Talk:Ancient British Church in North America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Notability[edit]

How is this group notable? The two encyclopedia references are nearly identical and without sources. There's no mention of the ABCNA elsewhere that doesn't go back to the Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions, and nothing at all on the "Celtic-Catholic Culdee Community of Orthodox Monks, Hermits, Missionaries, and Evangelists of the Old Church of the Blessed Virgin, St. Mary of Glastonbury (Our Lady of Avalon), in Diaspora." It all sounds grandiose and major but maybe people haven't realized, usually the case with "Old Catholic" churches like this is it is all glamor and no substance. Usually the real extent of these groups is a geocities page (back then) and some guy's living room.--Aionlux (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If nothing else, it is notable because of the entries in 2 other encyclopedias and that it has had some notice in NRM literature (in addition to less reliable sources). There are literally thousands of religious groups which have not attracted any coverage whatsoever, so the person who authored the original article had good grounds to create it. When I put up the current version, I removed claims for which I could not find reliable sources. There are indications in less reliable sources that the group is not limited to Toronto, and unless the group has since dissolved, there is the possibility that the group has, or will, been the subject of papers not available via a quick Internet search (a poor basis to assess many smaller subjects). In any case, notability was not the reason the article was SD'd last Wednesday (WP:A7). There are literally thousands of religious groups that attract no notice in scholarship at all, and when 2 top NRM scholars elect to devote space in their works, I would suggest that the presumption is that the group is both notable and plausible. As with other short and/or low importance articles, this may serve as a starting point for someone researching the group. • Astynax talk 02:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I searched JSTOR and all the journals/databases available for religious studies and I didn't find anything else on this group. Its really not believable that a community that has orders of "Monks, Hermits, Missionaries and Evangelists" is completely invisible.--Aionlux (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
And until the group or a member does something criminal or outrageous, you may not find much in an online db. Like Google Books, these databases do not cover anything like the totality of scholarly material in the field of religion (or likely any other subject). Much material is still printed (papers presented in conference proceedings, festschriften, limited-circulation journals, etc.). We have short articles on other groups (the Jim Roberts Brethren comes to mind) that only appeared as a few brief entries in the lit before some media outlet or journal paper sparked greater coverage. I would agree with you were the cited references marginal, but Lewis and Melton are not marginal quality sources. • Astynax talk 17:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)