Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diocese of Aberdeen

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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diocese_of_Aberdeen[edit]

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

redundancy

I don't know if I've done this correctly. I'm going through the 'old diocese articles, and I came across this one. It seems to me like it is a POV fork for the two diocese articles, one with the COE and one with the Catholic dioceses, both successor dioceses claiming a connection to the ancient one. Do we really need this article? From what I can see, the information contained has been copied and pasted into both the current COE diocese and the RC diocese. Unlike most of the other ancient diocese articles, this diocese continues to exist. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed format some. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. Benkenobi18 was engaged on a crusade to rename all "Roman Catholic" dioceses, adding "Roman Catholic", and has edit-warred most all of the copious resistance he's encountered, most people giving up because of his tenacity. Before he came along, articles such as this covered both the historic Scottish diocese and the modern Roman Catholic diocese. They had to be split to stop him edit-warring, because of his insistence of adding "Roman Catholic" to the front. As has been explained to him by several users, the historical Scottish diocese articles aren't synonymous with modern Roman Catholic dioceses, as they had different boundaries and were both Catholic and Church of Scotland (c/f articles in "Bishop of ...", e.g. Bishop of Galloway, that Ben's edit-warring hasn't touched). Find it difficult, given Benkenobi18 disruptive history in this area, to see this nomination as anything but bad faith ... I mean, now that he's got what he wanted, why does he want to delete the article on the historic diocese? But in case it's good faith, I'll explain to him again ... All these dioceses have separate Catholic and Episcopal successor dioceses, some of which share the same name, some of which don't. The episcopal structure is based on the old Scottish dioceses (usually merging multiple dioceses into one, in this case Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney), the Roman Catholic structure is new, though often employing the same names. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was founded as a Catholic diocese, but following the Scottish Reformation the diocese became prostestant. The Church of Scotland (not COE) diocese continued until it was abolished in 1689. The Scottish Episcopal Church then used the diocese name until 1865 when it united with the diocese of Orkney to form the current Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney. The current Roman Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen was resurrected in 1878. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the article should remain. It contains information about each religious denomination. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a problem with this article. However, it should have been tagged with {{catholic}} to indicate that it was derived from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see that this is a POV fork. It is related content, but that's completely okay, as these entities change names and shapes over time. After all, we have separate articles on the Roman province of Hispania, and Portugal, and Spain :) Ray^Talk 04:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Catholic Diocese of Aberdeen would be the POV anyway, as that post-dates this article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - self-evidently a bad faith nomination, as witnessed by the repeated refererral to the "Church of England" (sic) in reference to a Scottish article. This is baiting, pure and simple. Why do Admins not just block disruptive editors? By not blocking such people you are just wasting vast amounts of your own (and other users) time and energy. Therefore my sympathy for the plight of Admins is limited when I find out about new trails of destruction like this one. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's about a historic entity, and part of a set of articles on Dioceses of Medieval Scotland. (Note as well, that there is no "C of E diocese" in Scotland.) Tb (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2009 (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.