Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denzil Meuli


 * 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. (non-admin closure) B  music  ian  05:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Denzil Meuli

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete. A run of the mill priest. Yes, there are refs (some from his own website in contravention to policy) but that does not make him notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite finding a number of sources, I'm not seeing anything that rises to the level of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep there are at least two solid references to establish Meuli's notability: Elizabeth Isichei in Archives des sciences sociales des religions, 1991, Vol. 75, Issue 1, pp. 113-125 (a respected academic journal in the area) and Nicholas Reid, a respected New Zealand historian, in his biography James Michael Liston: A Life, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 2006 p. 291. This is the second time a attempt has been made to remove this article. From memory, the first nomination for deletion was dealt with very quickly because of the academic treatment referred to. Meuli achieved most notability in New Zealand in relation to James Liston and perhaps more on the cause célebre involved, could be placed in the Liston article.Rick570 (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Speedy was declined with this edit and the comment "speedy delete declined, this person has academic articles about him, so could be shown to be notable with references". Stuartyeates (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet the basic requirements for WP: Notability (people) because he has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times; and has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. I can't see anything within the article that would mitigate this requirement NealeFamily (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note if Speedy Delete was declined with this edit with the comment "speedy delete declined, this person has academic articles about him, so could be shown to be notable with references". Does not that judgement still apply? What changed circumstances now require its deletion?Rick570 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy is only used for the most egarious of situations, PROD for less egarious and AfD (the current process) for situation where a consensus decision is required. The "could" in the speedy decline indicates that even the decliner wasn't sure whether this person was truely notable. I'd hesitate to call it a judgement. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note If the article was previously acceptable, What changed circumstances now require its deletion?Rick570 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All articles remain of uncertain acceptability, pending an WP:AfD discussion such as this. The previous speedy incident demonstrates that the article is not blatently unacceptable. This WP:AfD discussion attempts to be a more considered process, reaching a consensus amount editors, based on policies such as the Notability policy and the Notability (people) policy. I encourage you to find reliable sources which are independent of the subject but discuss the subject in detail, becuase the existance of such sources is at the core of the AfD process. It is also posssible that while the subject is not notable, they were affiliated with a notable event, organisation or other topic which already has a wikiepdia page and the contents of the two can be merged. Roman Catholic Diocese of Auckland and Roman_Catholicism_in_New_Zealand seem like good candiates in this case, but neither cover individual preists, making them non-ideal. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understanding the content correctly (and bearing in mind I know almost nothing about the Catholic Church) merge and redirect to James_Michael_Liston seems like a good solution. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note That is very helpful. Thankyou. I hope you will give me some time to improve the article with independent references.Rick570 (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this entry. He is world famous for his work on the pro multus issue. (added by User:125.237.73.40)
 * The article doesn't mention "pro multus" or in what way he might be famous for it. I invite you to add discussion, with references, about this to the article. If can can be shown to be world famous, the article is likely to be kept. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. I am rewriting the article and will look into the question of "ad multis".Rick570 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely the nomination for deletion can now be withdrawn. I will do more work on the article and also on the other other other relevant topics: Zealandia (newspaper), James Michael Liston, and Roman Catholicism in New Zealand and perhaps articles on one or two of the other editors.Rick570 (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me now. Generally when you update another page based on a conversation like this, you need to mention your updates to get people to revisit the other page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per recent additions by Rick570. (change !vote, see above) Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * NoteThanks very much for your help.Rick570 (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not convinced that the rewrite establishes notability. There is still two primary sources and a lot of the other stuff is from one source or from less reliable publications. Also, some of the stuff is more applicable to the Zealandia article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note There are at least four good sources, including Zealandia itself. You are really talking about sources and not about the Meuli's notability. His notability is his achievement as editor of an established newspaper in such circumstances and his priestly ministry is very unusual for a catholic priest and not "run of the mill" at all. The article also needs to have a reference to his "ad multis" views which probably marks him out as a dissident really. I propose to do more research on that to add to the article. I agree that Zealandia (newspaper) should be expanded to fit in with this article.Rick570 (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See also (not independent),   (reference to a group led by him),  (quite a solid ref) and  (have to check at work). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks you very much. I will check them out later. I appreciate your generosity.Rick570 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would seem likely that there are sources covering his time in Europe (if one spoke the appropriate languages and knew where to look). It is a pity that papers past doesn't yet cover the 1960s. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as enough now to be notable. NealeFamily (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per improvements to the article and rationale above stated by User:Rick570 in their !vote. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources do seem to back this one up. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Good rescue.  DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 29 April 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.