Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglicans Online

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. Despite improvements, I don't see an agreement that the article should be kept. ClaudineChionh if you want the article moved to user / draft space for further work, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans Online

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of a previously expired/deleted PRODded article. New version was created by a serial unreferenced article creator who doesn't respond to talk page messages. My prod was something like: Serves as a directory listing for a directory. I'm not seeing reliable secondary significant coverage elsewhere; brief mentions on Google Scholar and elsewhere. Further details: I prodded this one w/o realizing that it had been prodded/deleted previously. I don't recall whether I prodded the previous one (I suspect not) and I don't know whether the creator of this unsourced article created the previous one. I completed a BEFORE but didn't find anything in the significant-secondary-reliable happy place. The person who deprodded this time did it on the technicality of its having been recreated; that person noted that notability is not demonstrated; someone else removed all unsourced content. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Websites. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or draftify) – AO is now "retired" but it is historically significant as the first major online news/commentary resource for the Anglican Communion. I didn't realise it didn't have a decent Wikipedia article and I'm willing to make a start on one. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as it is now is still not close to a keep for me (notability not yet demonstrated; "first major online news/commentary resource" of various religious denominations and other groups doesn't suggest Wikipedia notability; most sources just point to Anglicans Online), but I wouldn't object to a draftification if you think you can improve it or to a redirect if you can think of a better place to cover this website/directory. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current nominator actually was the editor who prodded the earlier version; both were created by the same editor. The older one only had the organisation's website as source. The current article has been stubbed as unreferenced, so interested parties are referred to the longer version in the history. I didn't see notability but I'm always willing to be persuaded. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ClaudineChionh, that's much improved. I've been thinking this one over. The main thing that speaks to potential notability seems to be the foundation in 1994, when as I recall the nonacademic web was in its infancy, search engines were very spotty, and websites consisting solely lists of links like this one were a major way of navigating. The earliest non-university-based website of which I'm aware also dates to 1994. I don't know how many of the early ones are still live. Is there much published on the history of Christian-focused websites, or similar? I don't even know if there were earlier Christian newsgroups/bulletin boards/mailing lists. I do recall my university Christian Union tried to start an online Bible -- I learned to type by typing in Matthew -- but got made to take it down over copyright. That would have been significantly earlier than 1994, probably 1990 or 1991, back in the days when even from a UK university you could only send e-mail to the States overnight. I think what's needed is sources, and preferably not all from the Anglican Journal. There's a brief description in the New Statesman (Andrew Brown. "The Church ignorant INTERNET." New Statesman, 128, no. 4464, 29 Nov. 1999, p. 75) and a mention in The Times ("Online devotion: the church's growing faith in the web." Times, 24 Feb. 1999, p. 11), oh, and another excellent one in The Times that I'd missed (Ruth Gledhill. Debate over rise of Synod liberals rages on Internet. Saturday, Oct. 28, 1995 The Times 65410 p10). Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info, Espresso Addict. I've tried to make the creator's articles sink or swim for a few years now; maybe I should have suspected that they recreated an expired prod (and that it was one of my prods) when I saw a familiar article title, but to my knowledge they've never done that before, so I thought I was mistaken. Now we know. ~~~~DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few more solid academic as well as news references in my brief literature search on the weekend but haven't been able to read them yet (I was preoccupied with an election). I doubt I'll be able to get to them before Thursday. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. As it is right now, I'm not seeing where it meets the criteria at WP:WEBCRIT. So far, other than the obituary of one of the people involved (fine to include, but it doesn't help notability), we've got 2 citations from Anglican Journal. One of them is only a page and I'm guessing that one doesn't cover the subject in-depth. The other one is 12 pages, but it only is used in the lead for describe what the website did and who worked on it. Maybe more details from that article could be fleshed out to communicate something other than it was a directory. Two articles from the same journal only count as one source per WP:SIGCO. But if you've got more, we look forward to seeing it on Thursday or after. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an online directory, not dissimilar to the Directory of the Catholic Church in each country. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on your rationale, Whiteguru; I'm not seeing how WP:NOTDIRECTORY is relevant. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a directory insofar as it gives a list of dioceses, churches erected, services available at said churches, community events and community services on offer. The website does this formally for each country where the Anglican communion is established. That is the function of a directory. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but (at least my reading is that) NOTDIRECTORY doesn't say we don't include directories, rather we are not a directory (of all things that exist). So Wikipedia should not list every Anglican (or Catholic, or whatever) website that's ever existed, but there's no reason it can't include a (notable) website whose primary function was to be a directory (especially one started in 1994, when search engines didn't work and such things were key to how people navigated). We have a whole category for directories. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- WP:NOTDIRECTORY is not relevant here, its about wikipedia not being a directory itself, you can of course post articles about notable directorys. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to determine consensus as to whether the improvements are sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTDIR doesn't apply, but GNG would. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page isn't a directory (so it passes), but it fails GNG. SWinxy (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whiteguru, you could update your deletion rationale if you see issues with notability, sourcing being primarily self-published, or some other issue to strengthen your vote. Maybe this will wrap up today/tomorrow or maybe it'll go on another week. ClaudineChionh has not updated the article or this page in some 2 weeks. Possibly got busy, but pinging. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondRemley39 yes – I had very little breathing space between election business and school getting very busy. I can't see myself getting back to this before the last week of June. If that's too far away, happy to draftify or move to userspace. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closer: If it is not delete (still my vote), I think draftifying (I'm not double-voting) is the next best option. At present, the article is not much improved, but the more that ClaudineChionh has access to could help a little. It is a waste of time to keep this open another ~3 weeks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement. The discussion need not go on another week. SWinxy (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement. The discussion need not go on another week. I am not inclined to update what I said earlier. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:11, 7 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.