Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Reeson

: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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[Margaret Reeson]]=

:{{la|Margaret Reeson}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Margaret Reeson}})

The subject doesn't measure up to notability in any category. As an author, she doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, as a historian she doesn't meet WP:PROF, and as a church person, she doesn't seem to be the equivalent of a bishop (who are considered notable) because the moderatorship is just a short-term thing. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

:Keep - Oh, dear StAnselm. I fear that a Presbyterian has a little envy (or otherwise) for Uniting Church in Australia people. That is so 35-ish years ago, when some Presbyterians chose to remain outside the UCA! (Okay, they had a choice, unlike the Methodist Church of Australasia.) However, you do not, obviously, understand the polity of the UCA: otherwise, you would understand the important position and ongoing stature of the position of Moderator; Or, perhaps, you do, and choose to be obstreperous. Maybe you do not think an author of original work on the history of: women in war; the wives of Christian missionaries; the Pacific Ocean missionary movement and so forth; is notable. Or, maybe you just do not like women leaders in churches, a theological position for which the Presbyterian church in Australian is well known.- Peter Ellis - Talk 10:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

::Please assume good faith. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • First off, the AfD is not complete, as the Discussion does not link up to the article. There is an ugly red link on top of the article. Secondly, her position appears to be equivalent in her church to the leadership level of bishop in apostolic churches. (For disclosure purposes, I should mention that I am a member of the Episcopal Church.) Bearian (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

:Now for substance. The Uniting Church in Australia appears to be a large denomination, the third largest in Australia, according to the article, so a leader in such a group is likely to be notable. Keep. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

::Two issues here - one is that she is moderator of a synod, while there is someone else who is President of the Uniting Church Assembly. Secondly, the role of Moderator goes in a rotational system with fixed terms - so its not clear that it is equivalent to a bishop. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

:::If you knew about the governance of the Uniting Church you would realise that it doesn't use the term Bishop. The President has national oversight of the National Assembly. The Moderator has jurisdictional oversight of the Synod. The NSW Synod covers roughly the jurisdictions of NSW and the ACT. Within bounds of the Synod there are a number of Presbyteries. A Presbytery has the role of the episcopal council where it is the body that ordains persons for ministry. The Moderator of NSW has a significant leadership and pastoral oversight role of a Synod with fourteen Presbyteries. However, it should also be noted that the UCA polity is NOT hierarchical. In the United Methodist Church (USA) they have Bishops who have temporary placements.Dean Tregenza (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

::Further comment: you says "likely to be notable" - but that doesn't mean she is. GNews gives zero hits. And so the question remains, are there indeed independent reliable sources giving her significant coverage? StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Dear saintly soul, you are aware that I have replied elsewhere about your call for this deletion. I will, here, repeat one part of that reply, to back up Dean Tregenza's reply to you: "Margaret's husband, Ron, is almost as notable, yet I could not justify to myself an entry on him just because he was a missionary minister and parish minister then regional (Presbytery) minister (equivalent to a bishop in episcopal churches) for some 15 years before retirement. As someone has said to me, that makes Margaret equivalent to an Archbishop in an episcopal church, and therein lies her notability." Furry has commented below on the ongoing role/'heft' of past Moderators; they are called on as "elder state(people)", in a similar way that retired (Arch)bishops are called on. GNews might not deliver any hits, but here is a [http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s1708625.htm hit] on the first page of a search result in ABC.org.au: So, please, do not believe all that you (can not) read.- Peter Ellis - Talk 07:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have actually referred to the Margaret Reeson Wikipedia article and used the information and sourced material from the list of published works following requests from Papua New Guinea. Margaret is still making valuable unpublished observations regarding the history of the PNG highlands area and deserves recognition for her knowledge and understanding of that part of the world. BruceM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.239.134 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think we have a problem about people who do not quite make it under category A, do not quite make it under category B and do not quite make it under category B, yet together have made a contribution that people will notice. I suggest that this article is one that will be sought by many readers and be helpful to many readers. There is no reason to delete it. Deleting it would not improve wikipedia, so ignore all rules if necessary and keep it. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. As an author Margaret Reeson whose work has been referenced by a diverse range of people. A simple Google search will find a number of places. Her work is cited (not just reviewed) in academic papers and at conferences (historical and theological). The article could actually have a bit more content with regards to this. However, on the matter of the "notability" of the role of Moderator within the Uniting Church (and within the wider community) is significant - even though it is temporary. Just because a role is temporary doesn't make it notable - that is a dumb argument. The role of the Prime Minister of Tuvalu is temporary but significant. I agree with Bduke removal doesn't improve wikipedia. Dean Tregenza (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep after reading debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC).
  • Keep. I have read the debate and fail to see a solid reason for deletion. As others have said, deletion will not improve Wikipedia. I have met Margaret Reeson but could not claim that I know her personally. What I do know, however, is that she has made and continues to make a significant contribution to the life of the Uniting Church through an extraordinary ability to conciliate between people with widely varying opinions — a case in point being her handling of the debate between those angered by the Uniting Church’s action (or lack of action, as they saw it) on the matter of homosexuality and those who supported (and even formulated) the church’s position. At this stage she was no longer serving as Moderator but displayed a wisdom and grace which, on their own, would have justified a Wikipedia entry. Such anecdotal evidence, of course, is impossible to cross-reference with academic footnotes; but that does not make it invalid. Furry (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep- I can see no compelling reason for deletion of this article. Sufficient academic achievement to merit coverage in WP. Carrite (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources indicate notability. It would also be good if we could keep interdenominational bickering off of Wikipedia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC).
  • Snow/speedy keep. Per above keeps. No need for further waste of time on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2011 (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.