Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officiant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus to delete the rewritten article, default to keep. Sandstein 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Officiant

Officiant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article already transwikied. Dicdef. —EdGl 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't meet CSD...already transwikied. Sr13 02:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP is not a dictionary. Can't see this as a redirect title either. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep. Total misunderstanding. This article is not about a word, it is about a religious occupation, probably not so importans as, say bishop, but still an occupation, with its "job description", dress code, etc., like cantor, rock star, or soloist. When have you been in church lately? :-) `'mikkanarxi 01:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:mikkanarxi, a lot of us here haven't been to a christian church in a very long time. Currently the article looks like a dicdef, it's been transwikied - if it isn't expanded with information regarding the dress code, statement of duties, cultural significance etc and referenced then it will probably be deleted because a whole lot of people have no idea that it is anything other than a piece of jargon needing a dictionary definition only. Garrie 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • In the case you haven't noticed (probably you don't know the significance, not being in church for a very long time), the second sentence is encyclopedic content, since it goes into detail of explanation. In fact, with minimal diligence anyone could have expanded this article. Deletionism is quite a convenient attitude: less trouble, isn't it? OK I am doing this. Not the forst time salvaging useful things. `'mikkanarxi 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article needs to assert that it belongs. This article does not. The assertion that that second sentence established notability by including encylopedic material is not meet by my reading. Vegaswikian 19:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep per Cantor. Sharkface217 03:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Not a valid reason to keep. You cannot use the "but a similar article exists" argument. —EdGl 03:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as rewritten. This is a real occupation, referenced and described in some detail. Google search gives much more information. Let us delete writer as well. It is a dicdef too: "anyone who creates a written work". Mukadderat 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Article was rewritten after nearly everyone had commented, so I want the rewritten version to get consideration. --W.marsh 18:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this article has advanced a bit beyond a pure dicdef, and it potentially could evolve further.-- danntm T C 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • strong delete Still is a dicdef. And, Officiant is not a religious occupation, it is a function of someone who has a religious occupation. A Bishop is an officiant at an ordination... I can't think of one religion where there is an ordained/commissioned 'officiant' as an office/job/occupation; it always is an aspect of the occupation itself. SkierRMH,08:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delete I agree with SkierRMH that in a Christian and some secular contexts, it is a functional occupation description, not a clear definition of a religious or civil office. The person who marries or officiates a sacrament must either be ordained or otherwise licensed to perform the action in most denominations. And thus the person's title would reflect that, (i.e. Licensed Minister, Authorized Minister, or ecclesial title.) Article as written is also currently extremely POV towards Christian officiants of Roman Catholic defined sacraments. Other religions also have persons who might serve as an officiant for some ceremonies in some circumstances, but the article does not reflect that in the slightest. Thus I'd advocate that the article as it stands is both a dicdef and in violation of WP:NPOV, bias. LaughingVulcan 17:27, 9 December 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.