Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Goold


 * 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. Here we have a consensus somewhere between keep and redirect/merge to the archdeacon article. Since the result is not a delete, I am closing it as keep, a redirect can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 11:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Frederick Goold

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a second AFD discussion for this article, previously discussed in August 2018.. The reason for listing is (and was then) that the subject is not notable. He was an archdeacon, but archdeacons are not notable by virtue of that role. They may be notable for some other reason but I cannot find any evidence that this one was.

Previous deletion discussion had a clear majority for delete but the admin decided that the introduction of new sources meant that "per nom" did not carry weight anymore so it was "no consensus". I have reviewed all the added sources, but none of them provide any reason for notability. They are things like listings of the archdeacons in the church, or letters acknowledging the archdeacons normal duties. These are entries you would expect for any member of the clergy, and do not demonstrate notability. There is nothing in the lead to explain what makes this person notable. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete since subject fails WP:ANYBIO. The previous discussion turned obfuscated when a commendably diligent editor offered offline citations. The supposedly conclusive inclusion of our subject in Frederic Boase's Modern English Biography, published from 1892 to 1901 in four volumes, comes up empty in the main body of the work, since the good archdeacon is mentioned nowhere in it. (The full text of the book's "Volume 1 (A-H)" is here). The name "Goold" is only retrieved by Boase from anonymity here, in the supplementary tomes of 1912. And, of course, the claim, made during that AfD, that any inclusion in Boase's work implies notability is erroneous, as one can deduce from perusing the entries in the aforecited links, which contain soldiery and priesthood galore.
 * The offline citations, which are mostly lists and local obits, already in the article or out there, suggest that our man of the cloth did indeed exist. However, per WP:RELPEOPLE, only bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status and our Christian was an archdeacon, ranked below bishophood, who led an otherwise uneventful life, historically, distinguished solely by the church office. So, let us let his soul rest in peace. Were we to go by the standards implied in the decision, entirely benevolent & well meaning though it was, to retain the article, we'd be allowing the Wikipedia project to turn into a library catalogue or some random collection of information, god forbid. -The Gnome (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He was not otherwise undistinguished, he was one of the principal landowners in County Limerick. The citations offered were not offline, they were generally in Google Books. The obituaries are not local (the Illustrated London News had a massive circulation equivalent to a national paper), nor are the biographical dictionaries "lists". The supplementary volumes of Boase were published to include people who died after 1892 plus oversights. If Boase, and similar works such as the DNB, seem to include more clergy than you might expect, the reason is probably because they were, or at least, were perceived to be, more important (legally, socially and historically etc) in nineteenth century Britain than they are in twenty-first century America today. RELPEOPLE is only an essay, not a guideline. James500 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete If you did not make the main edition of Boase in a time and place where you could have, we need other sourcing which we lack here, not inclusion in the supplementals, to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Archdeacon of Raphoe, and expand that article by adding a list of all the archdeacons in chronological order--I would hope wihout hte unhelpful overhead of making succession boxes. I originally nominated this for deletion, but I have since realized there's an alternative. Wedo include elements of a biographical dictionary, and it's reasonable for someone looking for a name to find some information. (this comment goes equallly for the other articles eing discussed now, and the similar ones which had erratic results earlier)  DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good idea for preserving the useful information without having hundreds of non notable stub articles. Perhaps a wikitable such as this? I put that together from the first few pages but could expand it to all the ones listed and then paste it into that page. The wikitable is just based on one used for Bishops. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this would be a way forward Bashereyre (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have now copied all biographical information from each archdeacon stub page to the Archdeacon of Raphoe page. Please feel free to change the table colouring to whatever you believe is most appropriate. If you approve, I will do the same for archdeacons of Southwark as per my other AfD nominations. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG and criteria 3 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly satisfies WP:NBIO. I would say that the fact that the Illustrated London News for 1877 describes him under "Obituary of Eminent Persons" for 1877 with a c.20 line account is indicative of some notability. Not to mention an entry about him in Boase' Modern English Biography supplement of 1912! (point 3 of WP:ANYBIO). We should not expect the plethora of modern-day sources to be anything like comparable with those of the mid-19th century, but we should expect AFD Nominators to read and act on WP:BEFORE, as rushing to delete noteworthy content from Wikipedia only serves to weaken it. He wasn't just a religious postholder - he was a person living in the 1800s who was written about, and that enables us to say he meets our notability criteria. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not my intention to comment on individual contributions to this debate as I doubt that would be very constructive. However, to the implied criticism that I had not acted and read on WP:BEFORE, I would reject that. The mention of the subject in the 1912 supplement of Boase is in the material I linked to in the nomination. The argument against that showing notability is more eloquently expressed by The Gnome, but still is included in my general comments. Mention - even in Boase (even if it were in the main work and not just the 1912 supplement) - does not establish notability on its own. You can disagree on that point, of course, but WP:BEFORE was followed. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Archdeacon of Raphoe. While sourced claims like "fourth largest landowner" were brought forth, this is a permastub at best. ミラP 04:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the offline citations have not shown to be non-trivial, until someone goes and looks them up, it is certainly possible they help to fulfill GNG like some here assert. His time period is not a good one for having free-on-the-net sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2020 (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.