Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles L. Burgreen


 * 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 (on the narrower end due to disagreement over routine/significant coverage, but there is consensus here). Daniel (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Charles L. Burgreen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The only sourcing I can find on Burgreen are publications of the Episcopal Church. For someone to be notable we need to be able to source them to reliable, 3rd party indepdent sources which give indepth coverage. Publications of the organization they are an officer of do not meet the indepdent prong in this requirement. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep – Beneath the surface, there's plenty of press coverage: see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. While he may not have been the world's most noteworthy person, these sources amount to significant coverage, particularly considering WP:BASIC's statement that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Putting these sources together, we have more than enough to write a policy-compliant non-stub article, which means he's notable. (WP:BISHOPS makes an argument that bishops are automatically notable, but we needn't delve into that when the GNG is passed, as in this case.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Bishops of major denominations are notable per se. Needs tagging as stub for expansion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no agreed upon inclusion criteria for religious leaders, definantely not one that automatically grants all the holders of the title of bishop notability. If we look at that string of 7 articles, those are all hyper local articles, one of them exists because Birgreeen was the son-in-law of a couple in the community, most others are about events not about Burgreen, and if being able to find a local newspaper article on someone being oradained an Epsicopal priest is grounds for creating an article, than we should have articles on way more Episcopal Priests than we do. Having a string of 7 mentions in hyper local coverage mainly of the event type does not add up to making someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE and Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes, so to state that there is "no consensus" is false. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete A one-sentence stub. The coverage Extraordinary Writ has found is local and WP:MILL, a quarter of the population of any US state would be notable if that is considered sufficient.  Furthermore, it's not clear that the Episcopal Diocese of the Armed Services and Federal Ministries is equivalent to a regular diocese.  Several of those Episcopal bishops have been borderline cases with substantially better sourcing.  I don't think the presence of the magic word "bishop" justifies a keep, and don't see coverage to justify a keep either. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 18:39, 23 July 2021 (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.