Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Nicolas Lemmens


 * 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. I withdraw this nomination. (non-admin closure) TBrandley 04:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Jean-Nicolas Lemmens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not appear to be notable, having no English significant coverage or reliable sources at all in order to pass the WP:GNG key guideline. Appears to be an entry at the French Wikipedia, but that's French, needs to be English. TBrandley 07:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an article translated from the Dutch Wikipedia; I've added the interwiki and the Dutch source for the article. Menke66 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment:Since I can't find a notability guideline for bishops and I'm not particularly aware of how important they are in the Catholic Church, I have mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Ryan Vesey 16:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a source, but it doesn't do anything to help establish notability. Ryan Vesey 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you did not look on the French page carefully enough as on the French page it is a Jacques Nicolas Lmmens the famous organ player.

Why you want to delete the Jean-Nicolas Lemmens page is without a valuable reason ? It has significance for the B.C. Canada people as he was the bishop of St. Andrew Cathedral and layed the first stone for that Cathedral.

Glemmens1940 (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, see my nomination description. No notability, consider that. TBrandley 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep:Pending comment from someone from WikiProject catholocism, it appears that Catholic Bishops are notable. See List of the Catholic bishops of the United States.  Lemmens was Bishop of Vancouver Island from 1888-1897 so there will be less than the customary number of good sources, but I still feel he is notable.  He was also known as John Nicholas Lemmens and a decent amount of material was written about him on page 515 of this PD book.  Unless someone else incorporates that material (it can be copied or completely rewritten) I hope to do so soon. Ryan Vesey 20:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Consensus has been that Catholic bishops are almost always considered notable - this discussion from last year . Also, see this essay . Also, per Ryan's above comments, the bishop in question is mentioned in some sources. Majoreditor (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bishops of major denominations are invariably considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are a few GoogleBooks hits which seem to discuss his contribution in the context of a wider view of Canadian Catholic history. There's also one which would seem to provide some details (biographical) by way of an obituary not long after his death. However, I'm struggling to source online links and most of the content is in French anyway. WP:NOENG provides for sources in languages other than English (they can all be in French - there's not requirement for them to be in English) but my limited French and lack of access to the texts themselves means checking reliability of the sources is going to be a struggle. That aside, there seems to be a contention that all bishops are (by default) considered notable. I'm not a huge of all x are notable arguments without some more to back it up, but everything combined would suggest this article should be kept. Stalwart 111  03:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, I've had a crack at doing some cleaning up - removed some of the strange language that came with the copy-paste, provided some verification references, fixed a few of the links, etc. Stalwart 111  04:04, 29 November 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.