Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyngres yr Eglwys yng Nghymru 1953Welsh Church Handbook

:{{la|Cyngres yr Eglwys yng Nghymru 1953Welsh Church Handbook}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyngres_yr_Eglwys_yng_Nghymru_1953Welsh_Church_Handbook Stats])

:({{Find sources|Cyngres yr Eglwys yng Nghymru 1953Welsh Church Handbook}})

No evidence of notability. Prod removed with mention on taljk page that several of the (redlinked) authors are notable, but e.g. Idris Bell is apparently a papyrologist, but wrote here on Modern Welsh Cultural Life, so not really his area of expertise anyway. Even ignoring this, notability is not inherited, and not every book that has contributions by notable people becomes a notable book.

Evidence is needed that the 1953 Welsh Church Congress Handbook is notable as a separate subject. I can't find this evidence through a Google search[https://www.google.be/#q=%22Cyngres+yr+Eglwys+yng+Nghymru%22], the book exists but that's about all that can be said. Fram (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - It exists, but it seems completely lacking in notability. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. The article lacks context. It is hard to understand what the article is about. If it is about a handbook, than it lack notability also. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Question Is this a book of common prayer? Or is this a progamme for a synod? Bearian (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly not the former and I do not believe it has served for the latter purpose:Clive Sweeting14 June 2014

• Potential keep, but rename -- This looks as if it was a significnat congress (conference), whose proceedings were widely circulated; though I do not know. I suspect that most of the redlinked particpants should be linkable. However, the article should be renamed to 1953 Welsh Church Congress Handbook, even if the Welsh version of the title comes first, particularly if it was published in English. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• KEEP At the time of writing 5 of 6 'notabilities' were not theoretically redlisted but appeared as such due to varying titles, initials, Christian names including one Welsh bardic origin name. These have now been made to conform with the exception of.A.H.Dodd who still appears in red despite suppression of his Professor title.

:I am not quite how absolutely notability is to be rated.Is someone from Newfoundland or fom Germany, from Malta and the United States to meet more or less exactly the same criteria. Please enlighten me. It would be helpful to find or at some stage to establish comparative statistics for countries with ratios for each.Clive Sweeting 14 June 2014

::::Clive, PLease sign your contributions using ~~~~, which is converted to a signature. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

::Since making my above comment, I have resolved all the redlinks. A.H. Dodd also has an article. The difficult contributor is E T Davies, who appears to have had an article written for the purpose, and also subject to AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Delete I am not certain I understand the title of the article, but even that is beside the point, as is the number of red links (or lack thereof) in the article (these have no bearing on the subject's notability). The article still contains no citations, no references, no evidence of having been the subject of discussion in multiple reliable secondary sources, and that is a problem. I am not even certain, based on the title, how I would go about finding such sources. KDS4444^Talk 18:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

---

• delete The highly croggled title isn't helping matters at all, but while I can find a very few web hits for it under its Welsh or English names, I can see one citation each for each language that isn't a catalogue entry. I can't find anything that says anything about it. Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2014 (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.