Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Wolfe (priest)


 * 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Charles Wolfe (priest)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No apparent notability Kevin McE (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also see Articles for deletion/John Plemth
 * Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)
 * Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron
 * Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge
 * Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael
 * Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury
 * Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham
 * Articles for deletion/Wandlyn SnelgroveBashereyre (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete one reference to a clerical directory is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The Dean of a cathedral is notable by office, not achievementsBashereyre (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is that established? Is there a discussion thread or WP:NOTABILITY policy commitment to that effect?  The role of dean in some major cathedrals might be, but on what grounds are individual holders of the post? Kevin McE (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So if its not been established, let's start one. Would you know where we do this?Bashereyre (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * More to the point, if it has not been established, why are you asserting it as fact? Because if Wolfe does not meet the expectations at WP:BASIC, then a general principle re the status of dean should preclude creation of the article.  WP:CLERGY suggests that it might be assumed that Bishops reach that threshold, but not lower ranks. There have been numerous relevant discussions within Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), and in none of them is it even proposed that deans or archdeacons should be assumed notable.  You would need to get a consensus, I would suggest, at wp:Notability (people), but I consider it very unlikely.  Kevin McE (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the relistingBashereyre (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom and, there doesn't appear to be enough reliable/independent/sigcov sources to suggest that the subject here meets WP:GNG. The suggestion that "a dean is automatically notable" is not supported by any community-defined notability criteria. And, in fact, overtly falls short of WP:CLERGY and WP:POSITION. (The suggestion that "a dean is an important position, therefore this dean is automatically important/notable" does not stack up against WP:POSITION specifically). Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2018 (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.