Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Farrell (Roman Catholic Bishop)


 * 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 Speedy Keep. Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Brian Farrell (Roman Catholic Bishop)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Page gives no reason for notability. There are about 5,000 living Roman Catholic bishops, so we cannot include them all. SolidPlaid 05:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC) delete- per remarks from nom —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Why can't we include them all? Wikipedia is not paper. There are plenty of sources for him, ,  etc.  If a footballer who's played one match for Raith Rovers is automatically notable then how can a Bishop not be? Nick mallory 05:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The nom says there's no assertion of notability - I would hold that being a Bishop is automatically notable. The nom says 'we cannot include them all' which is obviously untrue.  The notability guidelines say that someone is notable if "The person has been the subject of published[1] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." and that is also the case.  How can you argue 'delete per nom'? Nick mallory 06:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The importance of a position is in part dependant on the difficulty of attainment, and the dilution of it's merits. for example, Order of Australia is a real, serious award, but we could hardly award everyone who got one based purely on that.  5000 Bishops seems just too far to use it, we might equally have a page for every Sheriff in Australia.JJJ999 06:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What about every baseballer who's appeared in a major league game or every professional footballer who's played in a national league? Should we get busy deleting some of them because there's too many? How about villages or species of beetles? The whole point about wikipedia is that it can be truly encyclopedic because it's not paper.  Nick mallory 07:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right!, being a Bishop is automatically notable as Nick said Elmao 07:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Nick mallory. --RucasHost 07:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a combination of factors, from fame to significance. I have no idea who founded the MCC, but they are significant because of what the MCC later went on to become, even if almost nobody has heard of him.  On the other hand, there may be heaps of sporting stars, but because so many of them have considerable notability, they are all eligible.  For example, most people on wikipedia would probably consider Speedy Claxton to be an insignificant NBA player, but he has alot of fans, he is famous among thousands of people, he earns millions of dollars per year.  Many Spurs fans could think back to his useful play against the Nets in the 2003 finals, even if most people have forgotten him by now.  For this he is sufficiently notable.  I am not convinced a Bishop is closer to an NBA player than to a glorified sheriff.JJJ999 07:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling I would disagree with the argument you're trying to make but, as I can't make head nor tail of it, let's see what other people have to say. "I am not convinced a Bishop is closer to an NBA player than to a glorified sheriff"...Um, you do know what a Bishop is, right? Nick mallory 08:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - All Roman Catholic Bishops (and analogous positions in similarly well-established denominations or religions) are in principle notable simply by virtue of their office. Persons below that rank (or equivalent ranks in other denominations/religions) are not notable (according to their office), although they may be notable for other reasons. --SJK 08:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability as a concept, is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". The article has citations of relevant sources. Also, yes, every person that got an Order of Australia should get an article. Not because they got one, but rather because they did something notable to get it. Fosnez 08:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Quite high up position in fairly well known world religion. -- GWO —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable person. Andrew 18  @  11:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - yes we want them all. Worse, we want all that ever lived! Not just bishops BTW. Another editor is trying for all generals, so not confined to bishops. I assume 1-term (or less) congresspersons, too! Student7 12:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to get excited about something, try Jessamyn West (librarian) which has survived two or more afds! (I was about to try it myself but want daunted by her claque. Student7 12:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment 5000 is not such a big number. I think it compares well with the number of state (or similar country subdivision) governors in the world, or with the number of football players on national teams, or with the number of notable actors in Hollywood movies, etc. and I think that Wikipedia aims to list all these people. --Itub 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets WP:BIO.  - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - clearly notable by dint of his position. If there are 5,000 RC bishops in the world and there are 1,114,966,000 RCs [Roman Catholic Church] then each RC bishop could be spiritual leader to 222,993 people.  I'd say that's pretty notable.  B1atv 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - I tend to the view that bishops of major denominations are notable ex officio, in this particular case his responsibility for ecumenical dialogue also makes him potentially highly influential. David Underdown 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I know how to get something deleted in future... make sure the guy isn't religious.JJJ999 15:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No - make sure they aren't notable. Smashville 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This nomination doesn't make sense. I mean, seriously...the reason makes no sense. "There's a lot of them" is not a reason to delete. See WP:NOTPAPER. I mean, the reason for this nomination goes against the entire point of Wikipedia. Smashville 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Keep but only because there are now enough references to pass WP:N. When initially nominated, the only reference in the article was proof of subjects ordination as Bishop. I don't agree that RC Bishop automatically passes notability. Archbishop and above sure. If a city's mayor isn't automatically notable, then it doesn't make sense for the Bishop of the same area to automatically pass. Titular Bishop's seem even more problematic which is the case here. Horrorshowj 20:02, 20 September 2007 (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.