Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geert Stuyver

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 delete. Rough consensus is to delete: Two of the "keep" opinions are expressed as weak, and none point to any reliable sources covering this person in some detail, which is what we need for any article and certainly for a WP:BLP. Sandstein 08:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geert Stuyver[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This bishop of an extremely small sect doesn't have the necessary notability, as it lacks reliable independent sources (I guess the best, if not the only one, is this which mentions him briefly). Fram (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has an article in Dutch and Italian. If they weren't deleted at all, this shouldn't be. It is not an extremely small sect. Though it is not big, the IMBC is definitely not a small sect. Also, if it is, why do Donald Sanborn and Daniel Dolan not have their articles deleted, if their number of chapels are fewer compared to all IMBC chapels? I have tried to add more sources, including the one you mentioned, hope it suffices. King Pius (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is more of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. There are a whole number of Traditionalist and independent Catholic organizations, with many leaders saying that they are bishops. I think a stronger argument would be how much coverage Geert Stuyver has received. Donald Sanborn is not the leader of a particularly large congregation but he is well known in the Sedevacantist and traditional Catholic community. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sanborn is well known in the Sedevacantist and traditional Catholic community because of the fact that the traditional Catholic community in the United States is somewhat noisy. IMBC operates in Western Europe, Hungary, and Argentina. Also, it's not as if Bp. Stuyver is that unknown. A fair amount of Americans know him because of the 2018 consecration of Bp. Selway. You state "There are a whole number of Traditionalist and independent Catholic organizations, with many leaders saying that they are bishops." He's an acknowledged sede bishop in general. Not unlike many others. He's cooperated with Bp. Sanborn many times. I think this all stems from the fact that the IMBC really is just not that heard of in the US. Another important note: Mexican Martín Dávila Gandara's page is approved. He is obviously less known and has less chapels than Bp. Stuyver. So I guess the objection that he's not well known should be dropped because it doesn't apply. King Pius (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that A fair amount of Americans know him because of the 2018 consecration of Bp. Selway is absurd, almost no Americans care about any consecrations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, must have made it more clear. I meant a fair amount of American sedevacantists/traditionalists. The accusation here is that he is just a shadow of the sedevacantist community(ies), which is false, because he isn't. King Pius (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep this article could certainly be improved with more independent sources, but I do think that it does just pass WP:GNG. Most of the facts in the article are cited, so its mostly just an issue of finding more coverage for the subject. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure if this article meets GNG, because I am not sure of the reliability of the sources. However the sourcing is 100 times better than what we have on the vast majority of articles on Catholic bishops, most of which are source to one blog.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: The issue here is that technically Stuyver is not a Roman Catholic bishop as commonly understood. Sedevacantists (to whom he belongs) are a minority within a larger minority of Catholic who reject Vatican II, who themselves are a subgroup of Traditionalist Catholicism who in turn form a subgroup of Catholicism! Stuyver and other Sedevacantist bishops lead denominations that are at most a few thousand. Perhaps an example that you might be familiar with is if that an article about a Mormon leader comes up on Wikipedia, but not in the well known Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, but rather in the extreme splinter group Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. So the question of notability should be determined by the coverage Stuyver has received rather than him just being a bishop. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with your pejorative refering to modern people with the name of an ancient prophet. I can not hear you through your use of the wrong terminology any more than an African-American could hear you through the use of the term Negro. That said, yet I know he is part of a splinter break away group, but that does not change the fact we rubber stamp keep articles with atrocious sourcing. We need to expand the BLP prod procedures to other types of articles, because right now people will double down on an article that has sat for 14 years with no sources at all and remove a prop from that article without adding any sources. Wikipedia needs to solve the unsource problem now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please I didn't mean any harm, and there is nothing in the article that says it's a prejogative. My apology if the term caused you distress. Anyway I don't see what any of this has to do with the deletion discussion, so good day. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Yes this is a splinter group. I have no idea how large, but suspect that it is small. I note that he celebrates in a chapel (not a church) and in three chapels elsewhere. I approach this on the basis that he is a leader of a small denomination. We have articles on the principle of sedevacantalism, but not on this as a Catholic denomination. It looks as if he has episcopal oversight of several congregations. If so, I think deletion inappropriate, but only by a narrow margin. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link listing Mass centers of IMBC so you don't need to suspect. https://www.sodalitium.biz/sante-messe/ You said we don't have an article on "this Catholic denomination". I don't know what you mean by this. Are you referring to this article on Istituto Mater Boni Consilii? How does he look "as if he has episcopal oversight of several congregations"? Which congregations are you talking about? He heads the IMBC. Where did you get that he heads others? Can you clarify more? King Pius (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a member of an obscure sect, the presumption of notability for Roman Catholic bishops does not apply. Several of the sources are to the sect's website, and the "Centro Studi La Runa" reference only trivially mentions him. WP:GNG does not appear to be met. I suppose a redirect to Istituto Mater Boni Consilii is a possibility, but I don't see enough coverage to even justify that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation that he lacks notability since he is a sedevacantist does not count, because bishops Donald Sanborn, Martín Dávila Gandara, and Clarence Kelly have their Wikipedia pages alive with no issues. Bishops Daniel Dolan and Mark Pivarunas also have their Wikipedia pages. About the sources, I think the problem has been fixed. I think it's sufficient, and if it's somewhat lacking, it can be supplied in the future, just like in a lot of articles. I'm fine with having a template attached, but it shouldn't be deleted because it will make Wikipedia extremely ever inconsistent. King Pius (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2021 (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.