Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Chicoine

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 04:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Chicoine

Delete. POV fork. 90% of this article is a direct copy from another article (Francis Schuckardt) except that in this article only the negative accussations against Francis Schuckardt are included with the omission of any answers to the accussations - an obvious backdoor attempt around Wiki policy and guidelines. In addition, 90% of this article is not about Chicoine, but about Francis Schuckardt. Lastly, Chicoine is not a significant enough figure to have his own page. Athanasius303 01:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Chicoine is as significant a figure as Schuckardt in the traditionalist Catholic movement, maybe even more so. He had the courage and insight to break up a destructive personality cult. Much of the information that is mostly about Schuckardt should be merged or deleted. After 1984 Schuckardt fell into obscurity. Chicoine lead a congregation of traditionalist catholics until he died. More information about Chicoine is needed. (Laurie Pipan)
  • Can you supply this info? If so, I'll vote "keep" Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Outside of the small Mt. St. Michael's group, Denis Chicoine is not a significant figure. He has never been covered by the major networks as Bishop Schuckardt has been and outside of his connection with Bishop Schuckardt, he has almost no historical position. Athanasius303 22:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge excess info with Francis Schuckardt. Some information is definitely POV but the article serves as more than simply a POV fork; it carries encyclopedic content and there's no reason to delete it. Nonetheless, much of the material is irrelevant to Chicoine and should be merged to Schuckardt. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Without wading too far into the mire of this arcane and marginal religious dispute, I looked through both the Schuckhardt and Chicoine articles, and I believe that all of the stuff in Chicoine is also present in Schuckhardt, except for the Aftermath & Recovery section. I guess the A&R should be merged in, but I can't find much else. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 10:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Way too little about the subject of the article, just a fork MadCow257 03:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork, definitely violates WP:NPOV, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per madcow --Khoikhoi 08:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge "Aftermath & Recovery" section and delete - per all above, the Chicoine article seems to be a way around the neutrality dispute - Chicoine is not notable except as an accuser, and thus the bio article functions as a way to bring up and rebut his accusations without having to address their validity - which would have to be addressed in the Shuckhardt article itself to get the POV tag removed. What little new information is present in Chicoine should be moved into Shuckhardt, and the POV dispute in the latter article should be resolved there. Perhaps the POV-removal process will yield further gems like this one from the Shuckhardt talk page: "Since it is a minority view that Shuckardt is a bishop of the Catholic Church and that his excommunications carry weight, the footnote purporting Denis Chicoine is in hell for eternity is both inappropriate, melodramatic, and hateful." Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 10:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: How can it be a POV-fork? It's a different person! This appears appears notable. Article needs cleanup to address POV issues but its not a reason for deletion. The deeper problem, which I think the accusations of POV-forkery are indicative of, is that a lot of the content in both Denis Chicoine and Francis Schuckardt should be moved to the articles about the organizations which they were associated with and the ideas that they promoted. This is why we don't hash out the Creation-evolution controversy in each article about an evolutionary biologist or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in every Israel- or Palestine-related article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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.