Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archdeacon of Ludlow


 * 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   keep. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Archdeacon of Ludlow

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article is about a common job in religious organizations, and further reduces its scope by referring to the job in a specific Diocese. This subject does not appear to meet notability criteria. Taroaldo (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is a chronological list of archdeacons and one of a set of such articles covering the UK. If Ludlow is considered for deletion then why not the other 30 odd articles in the series?

The lists are useful in defining the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church of England over the centuries and in tracing the early years of senior clerics in the church. The job is not common and we are not talking about a single diocese. The whole point of doing all of the archdeaconries is to see the total picture and not a picture with a hole in it to satisfy Taroaldo's inclinations.Plucas58 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked at a few, and they are likely candidates for deletion as well. However, I generally do not like the process of mass-tagging unless there are obvious or urgent circumstances. Taroaldo (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the picture you are trying to create, articles must be in keeping with notability guidelines. Taroaldo (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are in fact some 95 articles listing the Archdeacons of the Church of England by Archdeaconry. This makes Taroaldo's flagging for possible deletion of this particular article about the Ludlow archdeaconry all the more arbitrary. On the subject of notability Archdeacons were a considerable presence in English society in bygone days, much more so than the hordes of sportsmen who have been included on Wikipedia for playing a few games of an obscure sport for an obscure team in an obscure locality (or the villages of Northern Iran with their 100 inhabitants).

If Wikipedia is not going to descend into an online Hello magazine then the significant figures of the past, such as these senior churchmen who played such a key role in shaping the English nation, should be included and documented in their entirety (there are still 20 English archdeaconries yet undocumented). — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Plucas58  (talk • contribs)  11:40, 23 June 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Keep - It does seem that any archdeacon was quite an important person, and is still of note. This article includes all archdeacons since 1876, and it is telling that there are 5 blue links for the list of people who held this post.   Th e S te ve   10:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I find the nomination incomprehensible and not aligned to WP policy. I find 2,680 hits in Google Books, all WP:RS as far as I can see: more than enough for WP:N. -- 202.124.75.134 (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is about a job title within an organization, not a particular person, and nothing in the article asserts notability under WP:NGO. Per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The policy clearly states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Taroaldo (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I take it that Plucas58 (above) is arguing for "keep." -- 202.124.75.134 (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the original author I think I must. Plucas58 (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I might point out that the list of Archdeacons of Ludlow is merely a continuation of the long standing existing list of Archdeacons of Shropshire, which were renamed Archdeacons of Ludlow in 1876.


 * Keep. Let me start with a bit of common sense. Is this a topic that readers might well want to read about on wikipedia? I suggest that the answer is yes. In which case it seems more than likely that there are sources. I suggest that people who have access to libraries closer to Ludlow than I look for them. Internet searches may not be enough. This is also not just about a job title within an organization. It is perfectly OK to list holders of the office, and as noted above, the fact that several of them have articles is telling. Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. It is also key part of a major organisation, the Anglican Church. I see no convincing reason to not keep this article. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bduke. Should be plenty of offline sources.--Charles (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. A win-win solution to the moral dilemma of whether the Archdeacons of Ludlow are sufficiently well-known to join the Wikipedia pantheon of notable people would be to merge this article with the article on the Archdeacons of Shropshire on the grounds that the Archdeacons of Ludlow are essentially a continuation of the Archdeacons of Shropshire under a new name. The merged article (and as I authored both no one can object) would of course be named Archdeacon of Ludlow as the current title of the post. Plucas58 (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. No objections posted and therefore articles Archdeacon of Shropshire and Archdeacon of Ludlow merged as Archdeacon of Ludlow 26 June 2012 Plucas58 (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- As the Church of England is the established church in England, this is about a notable office. Each diocese has one or two archdeacons, so that the potential number of articles is relatively limited.  I am not sure that the merger with the preceding Shropshire post was in fact appropriate, as I think that archdeaconry may have covered the whole county, the part in Lichfield diocese as well as that in Hereford diocese, though I am not sure.  The nom's criticism would be justified if this concerned a vicar or rector.  I suspect that the lack of links for earlier holders may be due to the links not yet haveing been identified, rather than the persons listed not having WP articles.  I am not convinced that every person appointed archdeacon became notable by being so appointed.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentThere were two Archdeacons in Shropshire- one in Hereford diocese (which was renamed Ludlow and which is the subject of this debate) and the other in Lichfield diocese (see Archdeacon of Salop).Plucas58 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.