Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berthe Petit

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. The "delete" arguments that any coverage is in fringe or niche publications of dubious reliability have not been convincingly rebutted. Sandstein 08:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berthe Petit

[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)

Fails... pretty much any notability guideline that I can see. This person seems to be only covered in Lulu.com books, or OSV books (a small Christian press), and amateur Catholic sites reminiscent of Geocities and Angelfire. Also created by a vanished user which seems to write from the Christian perspective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--this "small Christian press" business is an illegitimate criticism. Wikipedia is not supposed to discriminate by size of publisher, or by religion. To preserve credibility, Headbomb should strike that from the deletion proposal. Barring that, could an administrator do it for us?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, if you prefer, replace that with "small non-academic press whose goal is to uncritically promote their own religious views, rather than serve as a reliable source on anything". Even there, reprints and new editions [1] are handled via pay-to-publish services like CreateSpace. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP is no place for discrimination.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is Wikipedia a place to cry "discrimination" as an excuse to elude the notability guidelines. Every subject, whether religious or not, is evaluated to the same standards and the reliability of sources is a key metric. Pointing out that a press is small and publishes with a specific religious mission is not discriminatory. They themselves say: There is an overarching mission statement that is etched into the exterior of our building: To serve the Church. It should go without saying that serving the Church is not the same as serving the readers of this project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By discrimination I was referring to the "small Christian press" rhetoric, not the nomination itself. I don't see people complaining about small secular presses. If it was a "small African-American press" that would also be wrong, as if somehow white presses are better.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People complain about small secular presses (and small Jewish / Muslim / Taoist / whatever presses) all the time. But you'll find those in AFDs that pertain to non-notable atheists and agnostics, or of those other religions, rather than AFDs concerning Christians. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The vast majority of the article is uncited and littered with CN templates. The only WP:RS in the References is an apostolic letter and there is no clear evidence to substantiate the article's implication that Petit's revelations directly influenced the content of the letter. The Freze book is no longer even listed by its publisher and is now self-published so should be treated accordingly. There are no sources that can be found that contradict Headbomb's characterization. In sum, there is no indication that the article subject qualifies under even the most lenient interpretations of notability criteria. The argument to keep is only an appeal to subjective importance and there are no logical merge or redirect targets. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 20:20, 25 April 2020 (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.