Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Saint Benedict (Eastern Orthodox)

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 merge to Eastern Orthodox Church. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Saint Benedict (Eastern Orthodox)[edit]

[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)

This group clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCHURCH. I found nothing from reliable independent sources on them.

Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ I'm a little loathe to delete, because I suspect there's a kernel here of a good article. If it's true that there's some subset of Orthodox monasteries and/or oblate programs that base themselves on the Rule of St Benedict, that does seem worthy of comment—and I can't shake the suspicion that there is commentary on it somewhere, if we knew where to look. But I've looked and can't find it, and the sources that the article does have are all garbage. So, delete! — Brian (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I might be changing my mind on this as I keep researching. Some of the old unsourced information you deleted includes some good clues for finding the right alleyways. Here's a source, for example, that talks about a Benedictine monastery and the history of the Latin rite on Athos. I suspect I'll be able to find more. (I'm actually tempted to re-post some of the unsourced ideas you deleted with a flag, in case it helps others. But I'm not trying to start an edit war with you. Would you be opposed?) —Brian (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be opposed? yes I am opposed. If you want to add information, it must be sourced by reliable sources. Veverve (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Maybe I’ll go back and add it to the talk page for future reference. I just have a strong bias against deleting old unsourced information on WP unless its factuality has been directly challenged, especially on less-trafficked pages, for exactly this reason. I fear that by deleting all of that you’ve made it harder for an interested editor to bring the article up to WP standards. Brian (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdhamilton: if you are interested, I wrote an entire essay to explain my reasoning on why such things should be done: WP:CHEWINGGUM. Veverve (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good read! I see where you're coming from, but I disagree in cases like these. A lot of the stuff that got deleted is fairly easy to find sources for. I wonder if a middle ground wouldn't be at least to add a note to the talk page about what was deleted, with a link to the last version of the article that included it all. Brian (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdhamilton: I would not oppose you putting on the article's talk page information I have deleted and which you believe could be sourced in the future (by you or anyone else). This is I think a good compromise. I advise using either Template:Talk quote block or Template:Collapse, and Template:Reflist-talk. Veverve (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete -- Benedictine is a Catholic order. This article is saying that its principles have been applied to an Antiochan Orthodox denomination, probably mainly in America. This has the feel of a splinter from a splinter, so that I doubt its notability. There may be scope for a brief merger to the parent denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider option of Merge suggested by participant. But what target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I do not believe there is enough RS-based information here at this time, but imagine RS do exist to support merging with Eastern Orthodox Church either in the Holy orders section or Relations with other Christians section (with the latter probably the best target). However, I'm quite bad at finding sources and possible useful sources like church websites are notoriously hard to come across through search websites unless you know what you are looking for (due to few hyperlinks leading to them resulting in low search coefficients). — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eastern Orthodox Church as there is enough coverage for a merge but not for a standalone article at present, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2023 (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.