Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Order

:{{la|Christian Order}} ([{{fullurl:Christian Order|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Order}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable religious magazine. Article offers no indication of extent of readership, potential readership base (presumably British Traditional Catholics -- likely to be a fairly small group as only 9% of UK is Catholic and about 0.2% of Catholics are Traditional Catholics), or influence. Article is cited solely to the magazine that is its topic.

I am also nominating the following related page, the article on its current editor, likewise sourced solely to this magazine (and offering no indication of notability beyond his editorship of it):

:{{la|Rod Pead}}

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability Subject has not received any coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only mentions I can find (apart from the magazines own web site) are mirror versions of the Wiki article. Teapotgeorge^Talk 11:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:OK, how about [http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/title/Cranmer%20s-Godly-Order/FuseAction/store.ItemDetails/SKU/18277/ the fly cover of Cranmer's Godly Order] by Michael Davies; [http://www.angelusonline.org/print.php?sid=3029 the Angelus], the magazine of the SSPX; [http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_18.htm the Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre]; [http://www.fatimapriest.com/work06.html Father Nicholas Gruner]; [http://www.catholicsunitedtopeter.com/PDF/Doc_Desupernaturalized_%20Church_would_lead_to_%20disaster.pdf Catholics United to Peter]; [http://www.fatima.org/crusader/cr46/cr46pg6.asp Fatima Crusader]; [http://www.apropos.org.uk/hamish.htm Apropos]; [http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=16 Searchlight magazine] (hardly complimentary); [http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/LIFLOV.HTM EWTN]; [http://indigo.ie/~colmgren/latsoc/template/rubrics_vid.html Latin Mass Society of Ireland]; [http://www.cfnews.org/jv-fatm.htm Catholic Family News]; [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6483/is_/ai_n25783028 Christian Insight].

:This took far longer to type out here than to search, but the point is that they are everywhere in the traditionalist movement, as you would expect for a journal that has been consistently published for 49 years.

:JASpencer (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

::These appear to be mostly fellow-travellers, often of questionable reliability, and often mere trivial mention (or even mere citation). Something more indepedent and/or substantive is required for WP:NOTE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:::But what a lot of fellow travellers (even if you do count Searchlight (!) and Fidelity). And as for "mere mentions" being part of the "Traditionalist triumvirate" and the "most influential Catholic Conservative magazine in the UK" are mere mentions of a sort, I suppose.

:::The point is that a simple search using Google finds far more than a few mirror sites. The arguement that the first page of Google is even on the face of it evidence of non-notability was OK three years ago, but it has little merit in these days of well SEO'd mirror sites. (I'd also say that something that was influential in the 60s, 70s and 80s is likely to appear in lots of footnotes).

:::JASpencer (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

::::Are either of those quotes from reliable third-party sources? Or merely back-patting from fellow Traditionalists? Being one of the three biggest fish in a very small pond is hardly a qualification for notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

::::I see that the "most influential Catholic Conservative magazine in the UK" comes from [http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/ SSPX Agenda], a Tripod.com-hosted site of no apparent reliability at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

::::I apprehend from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Order&curid=21104947&diff=264684663&oldid=264684471 this personal attack] that it was originally published in Fidelity Magazine, and merely republished in the unreliable web-hosted site. Please inform us as to why we should consider the former to be a reliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep (1) It's an international magazine (based in the UK) with quite a lot of influence on both the conservative and traditionalist Catholic network. (2) It has a disproportionate influence on British Catholic politics, for example originating the boycott on CAFOD.. (3) It has been in continuous operation since 1960 (or the 1950s if you include its predecesor the Christian Democrat). JASpencer (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

::...oh and merge or redirect Rod Peade into the Christian Order article to avoid losing the history. JASpencer (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

::*An influence on politics would certainly make this notable, but it's not in the article. Can you give a source that proves that claim? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• delete no establishable notability which makes claims of influence highly dubious and, at any rate, unverifiable.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both: Non-notable magazine and non-notable person. Schuym1 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notable magazine that has an established history since 1960. Dwain (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The magazine exists, has been discussed in secondary sources. I don't especially like conservative Catholics either but that is not a reason to delete their magazine. Redddogg (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both: non-notable, dubious claims. JamesBurns (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both - To take care of the easy one first, even if the magazine were notable, the editor is not. As for the magazine, nowhere in the article does it delineate any effects the magazine has had. There isn't even a circulation indication. It's all well and good to be critical, but when the criticism has no effect or is ignored (as it appears to be; "troublesome" doesn't really indicate anything), the medium cannot be notable. MSJapan (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.