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. asilvering (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Saint Helena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence from reliable, independent sources that this group is notable. E.g. something like this is published by or affiliated to the Episcopal Church and thus isn't independent. Church Publishing, which published books by the congregation, is also related to the Episcopal Church. Fram (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Religion, Christianity, United States of America, and South Carolina. Fram (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is very flawed for this. The Order's target efforts are designed with the Episcopal Church in mind, as with many order religious orders. By saying that the Church who they are connected to shows notoriety of their work would have the same meaning as the saying the page for International Commission on English in the Liturgy page being deleted because the publisher of their works is Catholic Book Publishing, a company related to the Catholic Church.

I also sense possible retribution here from User:Fram. I put a question in their talk page about this, and afterwards they neglected to respond to by rebuttal to them, and did this instead.

Hope we can work this out here, it would be extremely bad precedent for this to go through. You would have to remove >25 pages for religious orders to apply the same precedent.

Thanks.

Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 15:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Retribution"? I nominated the article for Proposed Deletion during new page patrolling, I wasn't convinced by your reply, so I nominated it for deletion at AfD. Fram (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, sorry, just a bit frustrated. Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 15:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - see comment below. Draftify - the article as it stands is poorly sourced, and does not establish notability with respect to WP:GNG. However, I did find this book [1] (reviewed here [2]) that contains a chapter on the Order of St Helena, so there is at least one somewhat better source that Thorn6130 could work into the article they created to help establish notability. I might also respectfully remind Thorn6130 that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the source and reminder, I will add that to the article now. Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 15:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That book is published by Church Publishing, which is a publishing house from the Episcopal Church, same as the Order. The author is or was a professor at the Episcopal Divinity School. So that's not really an independent source, that's a member of an organisation writing about another part of the same organisation, published by the same organisation. And the review is published by... the "Historical Society of the Episcopal Church" Fram (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We keep having the discussion come back to this. Fram, Church Publishing Incorporated is a separate corporation then the Episcopal Church. They do publish most of the liturgical rubrics and cannons for the Episcopal Church, however the only link to the Church itself or the Anglican communion is through corporate relations. Read more here: https://www.churchpublishing.org/aboutus. Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 16:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, any society, order, group, etc that does not belong to a diocese is not in-itself under direct control of the Episcopal Church. They are free to do what they please or say as a group. Same thing in the Catholic Church. They could, however, loose their status as recognized according to cannon law. The process would be similar to a convenience store not allowing the use of VISA credit cards, the organization still exists but they loose a large group of they customer base because large groups of people use VISA cards. Does that help? Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 16:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Church Publishing is part of the Church Pension Group (they even have the same logo), and the Church Pension Group is "a financial services organization that serves The Episcopal Church."[3] Their "executive leadership" has "a deep connection to The Episcopal Church"[4] The link is way closer than that between a convenience store and Visa. They are not an independent organisation at all[5]. Fram (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Key word is serves. They by no means have any obligation to support to Church, and they in-fact have publish books deeply criticises the Church in the past. Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 17:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pretty much per nom. WP:RS is clear that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources ...If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, and these sources should be reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Comparisons to multinational corporates such as VISA are spurious to say the least. It is clear from the WP:BEFORE that few of the sources presented are independent. News outlets have "order+of+saint+helena"&tbm=nws barely covered the group, except for one or two WP:MENTIONs of insufficient depth to establish notability, while the secondary, independent literature, and thus excluding those published by individuals or groups with a close connection to the topic, is "Order+of+Saint+Helena"&client=opera&hs=5OT&sca_esv=b21c03e197943224&udm=36&sxsrf=AHTn8zr13GBU5aDlGqx0vEldNzOf77IMhg:1739809960045&source=lnms literally non-existent. Also see WP:THREE. Please also see WP:BLUDGEON; you will convince nobody of the merits of your argument by responding to every comment you disagree with. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that most of the 'new' sources below are crap: E.g. The Marshall News Messenger and The Central New Jersey Home News are as about reliable sources as my toilet paper. No offence, of course. But just putting something into Newspapers.com and claiming that every result automatically demonstrates notability is fallacious. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously the comparison was made to Visa for the sake of metaphor, I was using a common example. Why that is spurious is beyond me.

  I found a few from local news sources:

  https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/2011/07/24/sisters-seek-room-grow/14532161007/

  https://www.recordonline.com/story/news/2008/10/03/sisters-leaving-vails-gate-in/52246093007/

  https://www.postandcourier.com/northaugusta/archive/community-news/st-helena-guest-house-now-open/article_316a17ad-3f0e-5ee8-bd8f-1803f0ec57a7.html Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 17:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And, WP:BLUDGEON refers to contradicting every point one is making thus bludgeoning the process and disruptively editing, if I disagree with an argument someone is making against an article I created I am entitled to respond too it just as much as you are entitled to. Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 17:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: Should be notable, but i can't find enough sourcing for this religious outfit. [6] seems ok, but it's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Most of the sourcing used in the article appears to be primary, or related to the church. Oaktree b (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As well as the sources mentioned above in The Augusta Chronicle (2011) [7] and The Post and Courier (2023) [8], and the article already cited from the Times Herald-Record (2008), I found another article in The Augusta Chronicle from 2014 [9], two longer articles, one from 1949 in The Central New Jersey Home News [10] and one from The Greenville News in 1957 [11], and two shorter ones about activities led by some of the sisters, in the Sun Herald from Biloxi, Mississippi, in 2001 [12] and The Marshall News Messenger from Texas in 1958 [13]. That is significant, sustained coverage in reliable, secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:GNG per RebeccaGreen. StAnselm (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per sources identified by Rebecca Green. Additional scholarly coverage is by Kujawa-Holbrook in the peer-reviewed journal Anglican and Episcopal History. Furthermore, the nominator's statement that The Living Church is affiliated with the Episcopal Church is incorrect. While it focuses on the Episcopal/Anglican churches, it is an independent publication akin to Commonweal (magazine) for the Catholic Church. (See here.) Some of The Living Church archives were donated to the Episcopal Archives, which is why they are hosted there, but the original publisher is not part of the Episcopal Church. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - thank you to RebeccaGreen and Dclemens1971 for the additional sourcing, which allows me to change my original draftify to keep. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rebecca Green's sourcing. PamD 16:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above discussion. Two caveats: (1) I always prefer that sources be added to the article for it to pass WP:HEY, and (2) I'm Episcopalian but don't know anyone who is in this order. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Their associate program (members of the laity who take modified vows but continue to live, work, and financially support themselves) is very small.

  Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 21:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral but leaning towards delete If we were writing about the building then I think the additional sources might work. However, technically, this community is an organisation. Therefore, the sources still have to satisfy WP:NCORP. Per the nom the article's current sources don't satisfy CORP because there's a bit of ambiguity about how independent they are. The sources that have emerged from this discussion are independent and give us something to develop the article with but piecing together articles from brief snapshots of moments in time without relying on a lot of synthesis is tricky. Still, given its age its likely that some pre-internet gems may exist. I think that starting with the sources and writing forwards is always a better option than writing and then rooting through the archives searching for sources to back up what you've written. Therefore, if notable a secondary-source led approach is what's needed.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC) Indefinitely blocked for disruption, UPE, use of LLM and suspected sock puppetry.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

  The sourcing identified above is sufficient to meet WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2025 (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.