Talk:Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211220502/http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/02/11/key-african-prelate-backs-communion-for-divorced-remarried/ to http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/02/11/key-african-prelate-backs-communion-for-divorced-remarried/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of this article

The event described in this article does not appear to be notable. Per Wikipedia policy, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

This means that there need to be reliable secondary sources addressing the event. But this article relies entirely on primary sources - news article and columns. These are primary sources according to Wikipedia policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Are_news-reporting_media_secondary_or_primary_sources? Moreover, nearly all the sources are articles from Catholic media outlets. The lack of "significant coverage" from a mainstream news outlet suggests that this event was not notable. The only secondary source regarding the synods is Ed Pentin's book, which is available only in Kindle edition.

I recommend this article for deletion. Thoughts?PluniaZ (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There are more sources on google scholar: https://scholar.google.de/scholar?start=0&q=%22Fourteenth+Ordinary+General+Assembly+of+the+Synod+of+Bishops%22&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5 And you can also find references in news outlets that are not Catholic: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=657&tbs=ar%3A1&tbm=nws&ei=JR9fXJCBN8rEwALjt7aADw&q=synod+2015&oq=synod+2015&gs_l=psy-ab.3...101825.105390.0.105886.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.0OFS_ImdW7U

Probably, the Catholic ones were used, as they are probably more specific. --QuasiPerlach (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

News articles are secondary sources, not primary sources. While there is also nothing wrong with using Catholic media, there was plenty of coverage in secular media as well. I oppose deletion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No, news articles are primary sources by wikipedia policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Are_news-reporting_media_secondary_or_primary_sources To compile a bunch of newspaper articles together to create an article, which is what this article is, is original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PluniaZ (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)