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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 12:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Ackerman

[edit]
Arlene Ackerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails to meet WP:BIO guidelines, unreferenced and orphaned. Contested ProD. Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- Futurano 14:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 23 countries.. If I am correct, in the United Nations all countries are equal be they be Luxemburg, Israel, Russia or USA. MCC is a religion and its head of its religion and its 7 "bishops/cardinals" are intitled to the same respect and treatment as if it was Pope Benedict and any Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. Callelinea 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think we can assert equal coverage to all the religions out there. Anyone can create a religion assuming one can gather enough followers. The # of countries in the world is a fixed number and cant be changed easily. I also disagree that the weight exerted by US is same as Luxemburg. US is in the security council with veto power. Corpx 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning here is well-put, if flawed. This isn't about whether the MCC church is notable or not. This is about whether this particular elder has done anything notable or not. Notability doesn't transfer from church to member. If she were the first lesbian elder of the church or even of the religion or, as I stated, a major contributor to the field of religion or LGBT, this might be different. I have read both articles, as well as offline references to Arlene Ackerman. While they may show she is a beloved figure in this church, she's not notable outside it. However, I will open the floor to the possibility of merging the article with that of the church. It's feasible. We've done it before to members of popular musical groups where the articles don't assert notability outside the band.--Ispy1981 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment We also might be dealing with COI here. The articles for this and other members of the church were written by Stephen Harte, a prominent member of the Edinburgh chapter. With all this, I'm going to open the floor to this suggestion. This isn't the only article on a pastor of this church that we have that doesn't meet with notability. Either 1) Keep them all and clean up. 2)Delete them all or 3) Delete them all and redirect to the church's article.--Ispy1981 20:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get dragged into another discussion, but even if she were to do nothing outside of her position as "Elder/Bishop" of her church, I would consider her notable. Bishops of other religions get articles on them based on their position in their respective churchs. As for the insinuation that there might be a conflict of interest here because the article was written by a active member of the MCC I would also strongly disagree.. I have written many articles about bishops and cardinals of the Catholic Church and see no conflict in my doing so.. I am also Cuban and have written many articles about things relating to Cuba.. Just because someone shows an interest in a particular topic does not mean that their is a COI. Yes the article might be better written or edited, but its subject matter is notable in their field. Callelinea 21:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is not an Elder in a congregation. She is one of 7 Elders in her Religion. You are confussing what an elder in a congregation in other religions to what the term Elder means in the Metropolitan Community Church. Being an Elder in the MCC is to be a member of the governing body of that religion. The head of that religion is chosen from that group of Elders and as such are the "crown princes" of that religion. In that context she should have an article in wikipedia. As do all "crown princes" in other religions and in royalty. Callelinea 13:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. , I find it funny that I, a product of 12 years of Catholic and Jesuit education am writing about in support about a person who is a member of a religion that the Catholic Church so strongly opposes. LOL. Callelinea 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like stress that MCC is only a Religious denomination, not a "Religion" like Callelinea states. Correct me if I wrong but Protestantism is the Religion here. As for equal attention to all churches in Wikipedia, I would disagree strongly. That would be disruptive because anyone can indeed create a religion, not to mention a denomination of existing religions. Should we research and describe them all? Certainly no. BTW, Callelinea, I find your insisting mentions of your own real-life religious background counterproductive. -- Futurano 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responce, I only put my religious belief in because I did not want to be accused of COI as others that have been in the past when they have written on MCC articles. As for the religious denomination part, you are correct, I should of reworded it differently but the meaning is still the same just as the Roman Catholic Church is not a religion but a denomination also. My comparrisons are correct though and the rational behind it. Callelinea 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the denomination is sourced, then I see no reason not to include it. 250 congregations is not insignificant. I have seen denominations with articles with far fewer than that. Futurano, are you suggesting that all Protestent denomination articles be deleted since when you get down to it, they are all basically "Protestant"? Trusilver 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I'm not, I was merely discussing terms (religion vs. denomination) in that sentence, not notability of mentioned denominations. As for 250 congregations, I agree and disagree with you at the same time :) If those 250 (or 25) deserved coverage in reliable secondary sources than they are significant for us, like you said in your first sentence; otherwise they are not. And I'm revising my opinion a bit: merge or redirect per Ispy1981. -- Futurano 19:04, 9 July 2007 (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.
More