Talk:Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 November 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as High-importance).

Anglicanism Mid‑importance

	Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

cathedrals?

What are the cathedrals of the Pīhopatanga? – Kaihsu (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural or racial streams?

The article states that the church is a “cultural” stream, but also that it is the home of Maori Anglicans. This needs some clarification. FairDinks (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting episcopal units

@StAnselm @Dclemens1971 @DBD @Atlantic306 do any of you oppose redirecting the episcopal units to this article? Although sourcing was found for the bishopric the sources do not provide enough coverage of the episcopal units to justify a stand alone article and the episcopal units were not discussed much at the AfD. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do object; the individual episcopal units are themselves the equivalent of dioceses and are thus themselves "bishoprics" within the broader tikanga. (NZ Anglicanism is its own thing.) I haven't found individual sourcing for all of them but that's just because I haven't searched. I suspect sufficient sourcing exists for each pihopatanga; it usually does for Anglican dioceses. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object as well. Traumnovelle, it's rather bad form to ask this question immediately after they were kept at AfD. When you say "sources do not provide enough coverage of the episcopal units", you haven't convinced anyone that you have done a thorough search for such searching. St Anselm (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The burden lies on you actually. I did look for sources but found nothing going to notability. Was I supposed to search through books on Anglicanism? The point of AfD is to get others involved, maybe they have access to materials others do not. Regardless, there was nothing established at AfD about the notability of these episcopal units and I asked the closer before I posted this.

If you think these should qualify for a stand alone article then you should provide sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: You ask: "Was I supposed to search through books on Anglicanism?" The answer, from WP:BEFORE, is a clear "yes": The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Your burden in nominating these entities collectively was to show that each one failed the notability guidelines. You did not convince anyone else who participated in the discussion, one of whom (@4meter4, whom you declined to tag in this discussion) pointed out that there was not a proper BEFORE search, since @StAnselm and I both provided sources easily found in Google Books. There is now a "keep" consensus that applies to each one of the articles covered in your nomination, which means a WP:6MONTHS recommended wait before revisiting said consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for books, I wasn't able to access any to verify if sigcov existed as I could not access them. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assent to a merge, pending re-expansion into separate articles when possible. There is precedent for this in that I have myself created several articles which group several dioceses together for paucity of citable information: Anglican dioceses of Eastern Uganda, of Northern Uganda, of Ankole and Kigezi, of Rwenzori, of Mombasa, of Maseno, of Mount Kenya, of Nakuru, of Burundi. Might this be an acceptable solution ad interim? DBD 20:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but those dioceses were not kept at AfD. St Anselm (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]