Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen T. Lane

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen T. Lane

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

The general assumption has been that bishops are default notable. However I think it is high time to admit that in some cases they just are not. All the coverage here and all I could find on Lane is internal Episcopal Sources. The exception are a local article he wrote that was published as an op-ed in a local Maine newspaper. No signs that he is turned to as an actual source in Maine on political thought. He presides over less than 12,000 Episcopalians. There are Catholic parishes that are that big. A good example of someone who is not notable who shows that Lane is not notable is Alexander A. Odume. Odume was for several years an LDS area seventy, being one of the presiding figures over 200,000 plus Latter-day Saints in West Africa. He then served as temple president in Aba Nigeria, arguably being the top spiritual leader for 100,000 or so Latter-day Saints. He now is the mission president of the Nigeria Benin City Mission. I can find better sources that tell more of the life of Odume than I can on Lane. It is not even that Lane presides over a small diocese per se. Scott B. Hayashi in the Episcopal Diocese of Utah has only 5,000 total parishoners, but this [1] article from the Deseret News shows people care what he says about some issues beyond the Episcopal community, this article [2] shows attention being given to his taking office. There is a total lack of articles focusing on Lane in the same way. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. But also because I think the less religion we have on Wikipedia, the better. If we were being truthful on any religious leaders Wikipedia page, we would call them misleaders, abusers, liars, and scoundrels, rather than giving them some type of honorable mention. These people should be infamous for their crimes against humanity rather than put on a pedestal. A certain Utah church is more guilty of this than most religions...but I digress. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We base articles on what is written in reliable sources, not the "truth" as known by individual Wikipedia editors. To follow your digression, I am an atheist myself, but I recognise that most (but by no means all) religious leaders genuinely believe what they preach, so to call them misleaders, abusers, liars, and scoundrels is inaccurate. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment shows just how widespread and acceptable anti-Mormonism is. Evidently spewing that type of hate is acceptable in many circles. Although it has no relevance at all to this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And your comment proves your tendency to play the victim. I was speaking of Warren Jeff's church, not the mainstream Mormon church. Furthermore, almost every member of my family is Mormon, so to sit here and say that I spew hate about them, is wrong, I only spread facts. The fact that the leaders of religious organizations don't view themselves as "misleaders, abusers, liars, and scoundrels" is irrelevant, because it is what they are doing even if they don't admit it to themselves. This is not "hate spewing", this is called recognizing reality. These leaders simply act like they know some eternal truth that the rest of us don't have the privilege of knowing. Why not just admit the truth, that none of us really know and we should stop pretending like we know the eternal plan for how humans should live their "mortal" life. Thank you for illustrating my point though, play the victim, never question your own beliefs, surround yourself only with people who agree with you and loudly proclaim anything contrary as "the devils work." -War wizard90 (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the general assumption of notability of bishops can't be applied to all denominations without regard to extent of a bishop's authority or the likelihood of sources existing. I think that that convention grew up with regard to the Catholic and Anglican churches, where a bishop has responsibility for significantly more people than this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, the Episcopalians are the US branch of Anglicanism. I tried to compare membership stats to Church of England ones, but Church of England membership by diocese stats are hard to find, but they seem to generally have many more churches per diocese. I think we need to actually show sources to keep an article like this, and I just don't see any.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that just shows my ignorance about religion in the United States. I was thinking of Church of England bishops here in England, where each has a notional flock (although lots of those are probably people who only go to church for christenings, weddings and funerals) much larger than that of this article subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in Bangor Daily News, Sun Journal, and The Lincoln County News. Hang googles (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage to meet GNG. Sources present in the article and at this AfD are local and routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent here; bishops of major apostolic denominations are per se notable. I really think that consensus has not changed. In this particular case, there appears to be plenty of available online sources. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian, and knew his predecessor's grandson. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 7 January 2017 (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.