Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Wilkins (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   keep. Seems consensus is to keep. Would reccomend adding more sources and fleshing out the article. JodyBtalk 15:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

George Wilkins (priest)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability. I don't see anything relevant in his work, it doesn't seem he was notable enough to deserve an article. Karljoos (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added some additional information about his life. I believe that anyone who achieves the position of Bishop or Archdeacon in the Anglican church is notable enough for an article. Andrewrabbott (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that being a Bishop is notable enough. There're few references (and some are not easily accesible) and it doesn't seem he "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field".--Karljoos (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But I think it meets the basic criteria of "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". His life and contribution to Nottingham is covered in detail in the Thesis "The Anglican Church in the industrialized town: St. Mary's parish, Nottingham, 1770-1884. M. Wendy Bowen. Nottingham M.Phil. 1997". Andrewrabbott (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. A focused Google Books search finds 216 books with coverage of this subject. Just looking through the first few of those we can see that an overview of the 19th century Church of England has coverage over seven pages and that a lengthy obituary of the subject was published in The Gentleman's Magazine. Clearly passes the WP:general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * '''Keep based on the sources found by Phil Bridger.Edward321 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep We're a project where the goal is to write articles, based on sources, not impressions, and this should apply to nominating articles for deletion also. BTW, we have always accepted Anglican & RC bishops  as notable; I do not recall any general decision about archdeacons, but I wouldn't really support make that a matter of course.     DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 24 February 2010 (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.