Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reader (Anglican Church)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, consensus is that this a valid topic that can be expanded, no prejudice to a merge being proposed which can be discussed on the talk page . Davewild (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reader (Anglican Church)[edit]
- Reader (Anglican Church) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Definition of a simple, basic specialized term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this violates WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:DICT. It is a perpetual stub with "that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status." It is basically a two sentence definition that belongs, at best, in Anglican Church. It already has a listing in Wiktionary[1] which might benefit from this slightly longer definition. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This can be expanded pretty easily. We can discuss the specific duties of a reader, the history of the position, statistical data about the position, etc. See [2] for starters. Zagalejo^^^ 05:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, seems like there's an entire book about readers. Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not convinced that it would be impossible to improve and expand this article beyond a brief definition. Zagalejo has suggested some good ideas and starting points, as well as a possible reference. --Canley (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (and expand)...there is enough info for the article. It merely needs to be expanded. --Cameron* 19:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For a previous copyvio added to the Reader article, I think this guy is a reasonably solid stub. In the nature of full disclosure, I split this article out of Reader and cleaned it up a good bit. To the nominator: I recommend that, in the future, you let more than a few days pass before deciding that a stub "cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status". -FrankTobia (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Lay reader. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It's a bit more general. The article under discussion seems to be focussed on Reader ministry in the Church of England, which has the most organized scheme of any of the Anglican churches. Lay reader incorporates material on Anglican churches in other parts of the world (and uses the name by which the office is most widely known internationally). But yes, substantively the same article. In fact, on second thought, I don't know if there's anything in here to merge. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, besides the sourcing... -FrankTobia (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit more general. The article under discussion seems to be focussed on Reader ministry in the Church of England, which has the most organized scheme of any of the Anglican churches. Lay reader incorporates material on Anglican churches in other parts of the world (and uses the name by which the office is most widely known internationally). But yes, substantively the same article. In fact, on second thought, I don't know if there's anything in here to merge. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2008 (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.