Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valid bishop

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. → Call me Hahc21 01:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valid bishop[edit]

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

As already noted from November, the article is not encyclopedic and has had no movement. In addition, zero sources except for a WP:OR style use of a Primary Source. It also seems to slant a bit to the Catholic side.

Also, could probably be merged into the bishop article that already exists. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a candidate for merging since the article is entirely unreferenced. I can't think of anything that could be included in an article with this title that could not be included in Bishop, so the article risks being a POV fork. If this article appeared on the new pages list I'd CSD it as a duplicate article.TheLongTone (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The whole subject of validity can be addressed (to the degree that the concept is even accepted) in the statement that bishops of different churches do not generally officially recognize each others' offices. The rest of it is all RC ecclesiology and doesn't need to be merged into the main article. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to say that "The whole subject of validity can be addressed (to the degree that the concept is even accepted) in the statement that bishops of different churches do not generally officially recognize each others' offices". The Catholic Church, for example, does recognize the validity of ordinations of bishops in the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches and some others. The RC Church's position on this bears examination in an article. Despite the lack of references in this article, this is a topic that has been thought about carefully for some centuries in some circles. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense" is too strong a word. I must admit that the RC pseudo-recognition of the EO episcopate had slipped my mind, to be sure. Nonetheless I do not see splitting this out as a separate topic; it is simultaneously too big and too small for that. On one level the invalidity of bishops need to be talked about in the main article itself; but on the other hand, detailed church-by-church discussion is indistinguishable from ecclesiology. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a valid topic. It could probably be the topic of a good article. References would be needed and some aspects of the style would need work. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The specific view of the Catholic Church might be a valid topic, developing what is given in the Apostolic succession article, but the more general question is best dealt with in that other article. The text of this article would be of little or no help for such a specific article. There seems to be no basis for its idea that Catholics believe Isaiah 22 was speaking about the papacy (!), and setting that up as a straw man for Calvinists and Reformed Christians to attack. Esoglou (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV, OR essay without sources. Yes, it's possible that an article about the validity of bishops and bishoprics could be written. I'd venture to suggest it would need to be split from somewhere (though I don't know of anywhere where the subject is covered in enough detail to justify it). It would also need some solid academic sources, a balanced POV and probably a different title. My point is that this should go but if someone who understands the topic sufficiently wants to, they should feel free to start a new article from scratch elsewhere. Stalwart111 10:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content into Bishop, but the article looks more like a rant (from a largely Catholic POV) than anything else. If there is nothing useful to merge then plain delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've written a long-ish introductory paragraph that makes the article a bit less of a POV rant and attempts to explain the actual nature of the concept and the reason why it is of interest. It still needs references. This present AfD is an example how POV ranting as opposed to exposition for those not previously familiar with the idea and holding different PsOV can make the topic appear worthless rather than making it appear that the topic needs a better article. I think those voting for deletion should look at the new paragraph and see if it justifies reconsidering. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't find the additional unsourced paragraph to be a remedy. The treatment of the issue at Episcopi vagantes#Theological issues could well be expanded, but it is hard to see what could be taken from the valid bishop article to merge with that discussion. We are not considering some ideal future article on valid episcopacy, much better thought out, better expressed, and much better sourced. What we are considering is this actual article, which does not at all deserve to be preserved. The ideal future article would be worth keeping, but the present one is not. Esoglou (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We are not considering some ideal future article on valid episcopacy, much better thought out, better expressed, and much better sourced. What we are considering is this actual article". Sorry, but that's dead wrong, by Wikipedia policy. Badness of an article is not grounds for deletion, but is a reason to re-write. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but an unsourced, irrelevant, POV based, and largely duplicated content is grounds to delete. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I agree. Actual sources are few and far between (and I mean sources available, not sources provided). Most include the term "valid bishop" in passing as part of a wider explanation of related concepts. Episcopal validity might be a topic worth covering, but not at this title. What you're proposing is that we blow it up and start again which is what is often proposed if the title is worth keeping but the content isn't. In this case, neither is worth keeping. Just pick a better title and start your new article (with sources). Stalwart111 21:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort to improve the article, but I agree that it is still not an article that should be retained. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is at best pushing one of many views on the office of bishop. The meaning of the term is very different for Mormons, Pentecostals, Baptists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and various other groups. The limits of who is and who is not a valid bishop are even more complex. I am not even convinced that "valid bishop" is the most used term for this topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete Few aspects here represent a unique article - "valid" is already represented by Apostolic Succession, and Bishop by Bishop, plus multiple theological views depending on Denomination not covered, but are elsewhere in WP. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2014 (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.