Talk:Archdeacon of Raphoe

List of archdeacons
As discussed on the Frederick Goold AfD page, I have created a list of the archdeacons, rescuing all the biographical information and refs from the stub pages of each incumbent. Please feel free to change the colouring I used on the table to an appropriate liturgical colour. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge the following pages into Archdeacon of Raphoe:


 * 1) Thomas O'Nahan
 * 2) Laurence (Archdeacon of Raphoe)
 * 3) Thomas Bruce (priest)
 * 4) James Hamilton (Archdeacon of Raphoe)
 * 5) Andrew Hamilton (priest)
 * 6) John Hamilton (priest)
 * 7) Frederick Hamilton (Archdeacon of Raphoe)
 * 8) Charles Leslie (priest)
 * 9) John Alcock (Archdeacon of Raphoe)
 * 10) James Montgomery (Archdeacon of Raphoe)
 * 11) Michael Kearney (priest)
 * 12) John Ussher (priest)
 * 13) Brabazon William Disney
 * 14) Maurice George Fenwick Bisset
 * 15) Frederick Falkiner Goold
 * 16) Michael Bell Cox
 * 17) John Molloy (priest)
 * 18) Louis Warden Crooks
 * 19) Matthew Scott Harte
 * 20) David Huss

Following recent AfD discussion on Goold the consensus edged towards redirect and the admin suggestion was to open discussion on that. I also took advice from the Tearoom and this course was suggested over the AfD route - particularly owing to license on re-using and not losing the bio page content.

Goold is just one of the above list of pages that remain stubs since their creation, and it is unlikely that any page can be further expanded. Some of these pages are one line long. I already updated, as per the AfD discussion, the Archdeacons of Raphoe page to contain all the information in all of the above stubs. The stubs now simply duplicate what is on the Archdeacons page. Archdeacons are not considered notable in their own right for a biography page, although they may be notable for other reasons. Nevertheless, the merge does not preclude a full page being created for an otherwise notable archdeacon in the future. It is simply a matter of reducing duplication, and ensuring all the information on these archdeacons can be found in one place by an interested reader. I believe the resultant archdeacons article is of a suitable size, and also would aid editors, allowing them to focus on just one page and ensure consistency of information. Sirfurboy (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not a simple case of all or nothing here. I would support some/most of these articles as redirects/merges, but not others (such as Frederick Falkiner Goold and Michael Kearney (priest)) who seem notable in their own right, with DNB-style entries) and should probably stand on their own and not just be a redirect. Whilst I haven't fully checked, my impression is it might be somewhat disingenuous to say that the stubs simply duplicate what's in the Archdeacon of Raphoe page, as I had thought it was the other way around. That said, I am very pleased you did the work to added the stub content and references to this page, and are now considering a merge/redirect as the original route of AFD which you seemed intent on following at first would have severed the linkages to this article, and thus weakened the encyclopaedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Response I agree it is not all or nothing. I will be happy to leave in place all articles for which we have no consensus. I would then make Wikilinks from the table to their full page. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree. There is nothing to suggest that any of these archdeacons rises above the demarcation set by WP:RELPEOPLE, through which we generally accept individual entries for persons of the cloth ranked from bishop and above. Congratulations, Sirfurboy, by the way, on the thorough work. -The Gnome (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree except for Michael Kearney, who meets WP:PROF from the named chair at Trinity College. . I don't think Goold really justifies an exception, but to avoid dispute, I'd keep him separate also.
 * Above suggestion made by DGG.


 * Agree except for Michael Kearney, on the additional condition that each person's page is made into a redirect that points directly to each name (this means to the individual name in the table if they are in the table). I am of the understanding that this is possible to do in the wiki software for tables. I will withdraw this condition if it turns out not to be possible. (Merging is okay for Frederick Falkiner Goold as well.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Response Thank you. I agree to do this (as long as it is possible). I will research it. It probably just needs an anchor point in the table row, and a #name in the redirect, but not sure yet how to insert one in wiki markup. It’s all a learning curve :) -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree except for Kearney. I am not convinced that Kearney meets notability guidelines for academics, but it debate on that issue should not hold up this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger of Frederick Goold who should have a standalone article. I observed at the AfDs that Goold satisfies GNG and criteria 3 of ANYBIO. In addition to that I have discovered that he satisfies WP:PROF and criteria 1 of ANYBIO because he was elected a member of the Royal Irish Academy: . His article can be expanded enormously and I think it should be. I am unable to comment at this time on the other nineteen archdeacons listed above because I have not had a chance to investigate their merits yet. James500 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC) I also oppose merger of Michael Kearney (priest) because he has an article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. James500 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC) I also oppose merger of Brabazon William Disney and Maurice George Fenwick Bisset. Both of them satisfy GNG. They also have articles in Boase's Modern English Biography and satisfy criteria 3 of ANYBIO. Brabazon William Disney also satisfies PROF and criteria 1 of ANYBIO because he was a member of the Royal Irish Academy: . James500 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you James. I was just considering giving this page a nudge in any case, to test whether I have understood the consensus. At this point consensus favours merge for all except Michael Kearney (a strong keep) and Frederick Goold (on whom I don't think we have consensus). To proceed with a merge, there must be consensus, so I am not currently intending on merging either of these two. Regarding the others - the merge process is clear that merge need not be a permanent process. If information comes to light after the merge is agreed, and even after the merge is enacted, it can be undone. The act of merging leaves behind the page as a redirect and this retains edit history and can be restored if editors later discover notability. Nothing is deleted. I hope that eases any concerns you may have that any of these others are notable - just that no-one knows that yet.


 * Regarding Frederick Goold, if this process leads to you updating his page with new information, I think that would be a positive outcome too.


 * Finally, I am hoping that might wish to comment. In any case, I would like to thank him for being the one who brought these names out of history and created this and other valuable collections of information. Although I think the format of one line stub pages is not the best way to present the information, I recognise that he is the one who did all the hard work in collating this information. The merge process will preserve all history and attribution to this effect, as it should. We are very much in his debt. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ETA: My above comments do not address Brabazon William Disney and Maurice George Fenwick Bisset as these were added to the preceding paragraphs of the discussion after I had written the above reply. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Although this has been up for a week now, new information has been presented concerning Brabazon William Disney and Maurice George Fenwick Bisset. The case for both is an entry in Boase and the case for Disney is additionally that he was a member of the Royal Irish Academy (per the comment from James500). Would other editors care to comment on this new information? Does this justify keeping these as Bio pages? Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, as we have no further responses, I will be closing this discussion soon. For the record, I disagree that the entry in Boase alone establishes notability for Wikipedia, and in any case, merge is not deletion. Merge leaves the original page with all edit history in place and can always be undone should sufficient information arise to flesh out the biography. Nevertheless it would be inappropriate for me to close this merge proposal by stating that consensus sided with me, so I propose to close with keep for Michael Kearney, and no consensus for Goold, Disney and Bisset. The others have consensus to merge. I trust that is in no way controversial. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)