Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Territory dependent on the Patriarch

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. ✗plicit 23:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Territory dependent on the Patriarch

[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)

There is no source which defines the subject, and the notability of the subject is dubious. Veverve (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- I would suggest Eastern Catholic territories dependent on patriarchs. This is essentially a list article, so that it does not require sources: the sources will be within the articles listed. Part of my reason for wanting a rename is that there appear to be three patriarchs involved, Jerusalem, Antioch and Babylon (Baghdad). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: This lists five patriarchs. And I do not see why the exact same information one can find on this website should be put on Wikipedia, as it would not provide any added value especially since the article does not reliably define the subject of the article. Veverve (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly a source. However, as I read the linked articles, there are three Catholic denominations (rites), each with its own patriarch, who directly exercises jurisdiction over a non-diocesan territory. I thought this was worth ONE article. I did not find this clearly expressed on gcatholic website. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete At a minimum this needs some citation for the lead sentence, and yes, there do need to be some sources for the various entries. As it stands, it fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2021 (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.