Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagos Province

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. Nomination withdrawn because a new title suggested in the course of the debate help to solve the problem of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos Province

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and no attempt by the page creator to establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excuse me but is this for real? The ecclesiastical provinces of the Church of Nigeria meet all the criteria of notability and I never had any problem starting the articles concerning the Abuja Province, Bendel Province and the others. The article about Lagos Province meets all the criteria of notability, despite being still in the stub phase. If a diocese meets all the criteria so does a ecclesiastical province for sure.Mistico (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't expect anything different from a "keep" or "merge" and sometime "redirect" vote from an article creator when their articles get nominated for deletion through WP:AfD because editors rarely want their articles or contributions deleted. Nonetheless, can you point out the multiple independent reliable sources that establish the subject notability? Note that notability is not inherited and its beyond a passing mention. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of RS that we can find to verify the number of the Church of Nigeria ecclesiastical provinces importance for the denomination, considering that its the second largest and the fastest growing Anglican church in the world, thats why they have 14, like this one: [1]Mistico (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its so amazing that the source you provided does not even mention the subject of the article under discussion at all. The source you provided is all about the Church of Nigeria. I remind you again that notability is not inherited. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anglican provinces are inherently notable, and this one is one of the most significant. St Anselm (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notability is not inherited. Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects and Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subjec. In either case, Notability requires verifiable evidence. This is why notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent: inherited and inherent notability claims can't be verified with evidence. They are only mere personal opinion. Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is written contradicts your logic: "Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. This is usually phrased as "All ____ are notable", for example, "all high schools are notable" or "no elementary schools are notable"." This by no means applies to the ecclesiastical provinces of a Anglican church. Can you please explain us your opinion because why do you think the ecclesiastical provinces of the Church of Nigeria arent notable, because there are dozens of sources that can corroborate the opposite? I already added one and its just needed to find RS about the growth of the Church of Nigeria. Your logic seems to go on circles and just keeps repeating the same. If you`re from Nigeria why don`t you try to find sources yourself? Here are two good sources: "Seven new Archbishops have been named by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) in a restructuring exercise endorsed at the Episcopal Synod concluded on Thursday, November 28 in Orlu Diocese, Imo State in Eastern Nigeria./ The Church now has ten Archbishops under a new arrangement, which replaced the old regime of three provinces with ten Ecclesiastical provinces."[2] [3] Mistico (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what are we discussing here? Lagos Province or ecclesiastical provinces of Anglican church? if you are talking about "ecclesiastical provinces of Anglican church", that's a different topic but this discussion is primarily on Lagos Province (which is not notable). All the sources you provided, including "www.oikoumene.org" does not in anyway establish the subject notability. Its just an evidence that the "Diocese of Lagos" exist. In addition, it does not even mention "Lagos Province". Note that "Province" is not the same as "Diocese". If you are talking about "Diocese of Lagos", that's a different topic. I don't think, I had severally repeated myself here and if I do, its simply because you are not getting it. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This proves that the Ecclesiastical Province of Lagos exists and is at least somewhat notable. The fact that something isnt easy to prove doesnt make it untrue, at least for someone like me who isnt an expert in the subject, and I think that someone that knew better the Nigerian press or the subject of religion of Nigeria, would certainly assure its notability. [4] [5]Mistico (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never insinuated that "Lagos Province" is a WP:HOAX. I think the appropriate title should be "Ecclesiastical Province of Lagos". Do you mind if we change the title of the article from "Lagos Province" to "Ecclesiastical Province of Lagos"? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. To avoid confusions with a political entity, I am changed the title.Mistico (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new title will surely be helpful and with that, you can find multiple third-party independent reliable sources that establish the subject notability. I'm going to close the discussion as Keep but in the future do not attempt to WP:Canvass other editors at WP:AfD as you abysmally canvass User:Anglicanus and User:Ltwin on their talk page @ User talk: Anglicanus#Lagos Province and User talk:Ltwin#Lagos Province. In addition, your edit summary here and reporting other editors as you attempted at User talk:Mistico#Lagos Province simply because they disagree with you is simply not constructive. I'm aware of all this moves but I kept mute because I felt the best way we can improve Wikipedia is to collaborate together constructively and to always assume good faith. Thanks for contributing significantly to Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subjusridictions of churches are important both in terms of understanding the polity, ecclessiology and history of specific denominations. And Anglican dioceses in Africa tend to be extraordinarily large, so that's even more true of provinces. Ltwin (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is your own personal opinion because your argument is not based on policy. You have not provide any evidence of the subject notability. Where are the sources that establish the subject notability? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment I withdraw my nomination to Keep this article because I found plenty of sources that established the subject notability, with the new title, I suggested above. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:41, 16 July 2015 (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.