The Teahouse (Anglican Network): Although news sources have printed basic announcements of the group's existence with quotes from involved people, none of these involve intellectually independent coverage as required for an organization to be considered notable.  ( t · c ) buidhe 05:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity , China ,  and United Kingdom .  ( t · c ) buidhe 05:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as sources from the central Church of England , Diocese of London and Church Times all equate to something more than not notable.  These are all Church of England-administered or related sources, so the independence factor is in play.  But when something reaches the Church Times —a fairly reliable source with a bit of editorial leeway and corporate separation—I start thinking notability exists.  However, the independence aspect referenced in the nom is still relevant, so a weak keep it is.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 06:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete : Changing my ! vote as I think the limited scope and inability for other editors doing their own digging to uncover much of anything else on the subject demonstrates that notability is very limited and likely not up to the GNG or any other meaningful metric.  While a merge could work, I think a single-line reference in an article that isn't as broad as History of the Church of England would probably be preferable.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 19:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have found sources from other diocese outsides of London such as Bristol, Leeds and Norwich, which demonstrates the impact the Teahouse is having across the national Church.  The Church Times is certainly independent and substantial, their Wiki pages has the following content in it: 'Madeleine Davies says: "I think what’s really important about the Church Times is it's independent. We're not affiliated to any other organisation, so we're really free in what we can write."  The editor, Paul Handley, says: “If the Church screws up, then we report it. If the Church does something fantastic, then we report it. We deliberately don’t have our own agenda.”' I have updated The Teahouse page to mention the reception and recognition it has also received from the U.K'. s largest Ecumenical (i.e. NON-Anglican) and independent news source, Premier Christianity.  So those of the two largest independent Anglican and Non-Anglican news sources you can get in the U.K. Also added a link to where The Teahouse has led the BBC's national service, which is broadcast across every regional station in the U.K.  In terms of Wider Society, I've input content related to The Teahouse being invited by the Western Front to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph every year to mark Remembrance Day, this is televised across the nation and high profile.  And also input evidence of The Teahouse being recognised by His Majesty The King and The Archbishop of Canterbury.  Although The Teahouse is small, it's diminutive size is it's USP, and the impact it has had on society would appear to be signifiant enough to warrant keeping.  Chi-ymru ( talk ) 21:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete - changed ! vote see below - whilst there are likely other news references such as 1 , I'm doubting that any of these meet the criteria of both independent and substantial .  From what I read, it is a network of less than a dozen ordained Anglican priests.  Noted, barely, as being vaguely interesting that it exists.  That's it.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Teahouse website appears to now list 19 ordained priests.  Still small in number, but the measure of significance in in the fact that The Teahouse represents "all" of the clergy of Chinese-heritage in the entire Church of England, or at least 99% of them.  It appears that the news sources that picked up The Teahouse are interested, because of the very small numbers, because they are such an underrepresented group.  That is what makes the network interesting, it's USP.  Chi-ymru ( talk ) 21:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a paragraph or so into History of the Church of England § 1970–present or a similar section with a later date range.  — siro χ o 09:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Keep, Delete, Merge, let's hear from other thoughtful editors what they think should happen.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have found sources from other diocese outsides of London such as Bristol, Leeds and Norwich, which demonstrates the impact the Teahouse is having across the national Church.  The Church Times is certainly independent and substantial, their Wiki pages has the following content in it: 'Madeleine Davies says: "I think what’s really important about the Church Times is it's independent. We're not affiliated to any other organisation, so we're really free in what we can write."  The editor, Paul Handley, says: “If the Church screws up, then we report it. If the Church does something fantastic, then we report it. We deliberately don’t have our own agenda.”' I have updated The Teahouse page to mention the reception and recognition it has also received from the U.K'. s largest Ecumenical (i.e. NON-Anglican) and independent news source, Premier Christianity.  So those of the two largest independent Anglican and Non-Anglican news sources you can get in the U.K. Also added a link to where The Teahouse has led the BBC's national service, which is broadcast across every regional station in the U.K.  In terms of Wider Society, I've input content related to The Teahouse being invited by the Western Front to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph every year to mark Remembrance Day, this is televised across the nation and high profile.  And also input evidence of The Teahouse being recognised by His Majesty The King and The Archbishop of Canterbury.  Although The Teahouse is small, it's diminutive size is it's USP, and the impact it has had on society would appear to be signifiant enough to warrant keeping.  Chi-ymru ( talk ) 21:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the sake of clarity, it is fair to point out that you started the page and made most of the substantive edits.  JMWt ( talk ) 06:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With regard to the sources you discuss here; Diocese outside of London are not relevant as they are not independent.  Church Times may be independent to some degree, but clearly they are discussing in detail Anglican topics for an Anglican audience.  Premier is an independent news source so this might be one out of all the sources that needs further thought and investigation.  The King is the titular head of the Church of England so in this capacity is not independent.  Groups invited to lay wreaths are not normally considered a strong sign of notability here.  As I said, perhaps the Premier article is enough, I will review.  JMWt ( talk ) 06:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my view these are the three best sources on the page at present.  1 - Bristol Post.  2 - Premier 3 - Christian Today Two of the three have named bylines and I believe they're all publications with proper editorial oversight.  Although they appear to be based on PR, maybe this is enough.  JMWt ( talk ) 06:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The NORG criteria still require intellectual independence, even if there is a byline.  I also believe that this topic is already adequately covered in the existing article on its founder, Mark Nam .  ( t · c ) buidhe 07:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure I've changed my weak delete vote from above, but I'm attempting to focus further discussion onto the sources.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very weak keep - on reflection I have changed by ! vote to keep but only barely.  I think the sources are probably enough and that my own remaining reasons for ! voting delete were WP:IDONTLIKEIT JMWt ( talk ) 13:10, 11 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus