Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Francis Kirby


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeffrey Francis Kirby

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Majority of sources are either primary sources or self-published. -- HighKing ++ 18:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Maybe not notable on an international scale, but very notable within the Diocese of Charleston and the state of South Carolina and throughout the private school system within the state. Has published multiple books, appeared on numerous radio and television programs, has a large social media presence with 10,000+ followers, and was recently nominated for the Order of the Palmetto by Governor Nikki Haley, the highest civilian honor in the state of SC. Many of the sources on his page are from various newspapers around the state of SC (including those in Greenville, Aiken, Columbia, Myrtle Beach, and Charleston) or are YouTube recordings of his interviews or appearances on various local and national radio and TV programs. I believe the article should remain and NOT be deleted. Boyarty (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately of the 113 references in the article, not one meets the criteria for arms length reporting. I asked on the article Talk page the following to which you did not respond, so we can only assume that you are unable to point to a single reference that assists us in evaluating whether Kirby meets the criteria for notability:
 * Hi Boyarty, there's currently 113 "references" for this article - far too many and it makes the article unwieldly. 39 are YouTube links or references to interviews. A further 12 are articles by Kirby himself. Some references do not show notability - for example, the Post and Courier "Diocese ordains 6 prients" or "Catholic diocese implements robust new strategy to recruit priests" or "Religious liberty: The church-state debate over women's health". Most articles seem to be Kirby providing a quote. Can you point to a particular reference that you believe shows notability? Be aware of policy that states the sources must be reliable *secondary* sources.
 * You state that Kirby has published multiple books. The books are self-published through "[www.signopress.com signo press]". The newspaper articles are, without a single exception, parochial stories that feature an interview with Kirby on events such as "Reverend to roam Rome for a year", "Father Kirby discusses books at St. Mary in Aiken" or "Father Kirby Farewell". In fact, looking at the URLs you've placed in the article, it appears you have scoured the internet for every mention of Kirby - and there still doesn't appear to be a reference that assists in establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 13:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I am not an expert Wikipedia editor by any stretch of the imagination and I clearly do not have the expertise as you do with regards to the lingo and the rules of Wikipedia (also, I don't log in very often, hence my delay replying to your posts), but I feel stuck in an impossible situation. If I did not include enough sources or a source for all the details on the page, aggressive editors would come in and paste "Citation Needed" all over the place and recommend that the article be deleted. So I instead was cautious and included substantial sources for every little fact on the page, but now I get accused of including too many sources, many of them trivial (because the facts they were sourcing are, themselves, trivial). I'm not sure how I (or other non-"professional" Wiki authors/editors in other situations) am supposed to win here? The linking to YouTube is the best I could do as most of the television and radio programs do not provide archived video of their broadcasts, podcasts, or shows, but even though they are hosted on the subject's personal YouTube channel they are still excerpts from state and national programs. As I mentioned, I have sources from numerous newspapers around the state and dozens of different TV and radio stations/programs. How much more do I need for it to qualify as notable? Within the state of SC and the Catholic community in the Diocese of Charleston, this guy is a pretty big name (plus his parish study guide on Pope Francis's Year of Mercy was used by hundreds of dioceses around the world) and it feels like his article is being targeted by people who haven't heard of him because they are not part of that community rather arbitrarily. In five minutes of searching I could find dozens of Wikipedia pages on less notable people that need to be deleted far more urgently than this page. Boyarty (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Classic example of a puff piece. The subject may well be on the way to notability, but isn't there yet. StAnselm (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This is a man who has managed to get himself in the Catholic press a good deal and has written a number of articles, and possibly a few booklets. However, I have significant doubts as to whether he has done enough to be WP-notable.  Nevertheless, I do not feel strongly enough to vote delete.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, but I know Fr. Kirby and his career closely. As the Vice President of Media for Fr. Kirby's publishing team at Saint Benedict Press & TAN Books - for whom he has written 4 published books and hosted 4 major Catholic video study programs for three different imprints: Saint Benedict Press, Catholic Courses, Catholic Scripture Study International - of course I am voting to keep this article. We began working with Fr. Kirby precisely because he is notable in the US Catholic market. We have continued to work with him precisely because he is notable and is requested by our customers. Fr. Kirby's materials published through our various imprints have reached more than 25,000 customers in the past 18 months. Two of Father Kirby’s Saint Benedict Press products would be Wall Street Journal bestsellers, and possibly New York Times bestsellers if they were sold through the channels that those publishers track as opposed to directly to Catholic parishes across the nation. Our companies have been in business for more than 45 years, we have hundreds of authors and Fr. Kirby is one of the most notable over the past several years. There are more Wikipedia articles than I could ever count that are not notable to me because they cover people or events in other countries, states or cities. But this is no "puff piece". Fr. Kirby is not just a self-published author and journalist. He is a national name in the Catholic market, with particular notability in the Southeastern US, and the Carolinas specifically. Here are our sites with info on his products: Links Removed per Request --Mkgallagher1 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note Just to point out that you've declared a conflict of interest just now that you are financially rewarded through selling books written by Kirby. It also appears from your total of 3 edits that you've created your account for the sole purpose of !voting to keep the article. Finally, please remove your advertising links to your websites. -- HighKing ++ 17:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Links removed. I’m not trying to disrespect the Wikipedia process or the editors who make it such a great source for information online. In your shoes, I would probably feel the same as you do. I certainly wasn’t trying to “advertise” to the editors here by sharing those links. I shared them because they are pertinent to the discussion regarding Fr. Kirby’s notability via the claim that he is merely a self-published author. That is not the case. If the issue at hand is strongly focused on the presence of primary sources rather than secondary, could someone advise as to where the line is drawn? For Catholics, diocesan newspapers and similar outlets are not primary sources (as I understand them), but are independent news outlets that operate within a specific market niche. --Mkgallagher1 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for removing the links. There are a number of policies that define and govern the criteria. Start with Notabability. It defines the general notability guideline as If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. It then goes on to define what "significant coverage" and "reliable sources", etc, are. When we examine the references in Kirby's article, this is the definition we are most like to use. I have been through the entire 100+ references and thry all fail against this definition. -- HighKing ++ 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * CommentThat particular user might have a "conflict of interest", but it does not change objective facts like: "Two of Father Kirby’s Saint Benedict Press products would be Wall Street Journal bestsellers, and possibly New York Times bestsellers if they were sold through the channels that those publishers track as opposed to directly to Catholic parishes across the nation". This is notable no matter who the Wikipedia user is that posts the information. Also, Father Kirby will be awarded the Order of the Palmetto this month, which seems exactly the sort of high honor that would mark notability (especially since it is a public honor being given by an outside party (The state of South Carolina) as opposed to an internal award within the Catholic church). Boyarty (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One person's "objective facts" are another person's WP:SYN. And many would argue about whether the statement was "objective" or contained any actual "facts" - best definition is that it is an opinion. Also, as per the |deletion discussion for the article "Recipients of the Order of the Palmetto", one of the better comments sums it up nicely by stating "presumably awardees have done something (perhaps notably, by Wikipedia standards) to have earned the award; that is likely what defines them, not receiving this award.". -- HighKing ++ 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete a simple case of WP:TOOSOON. Many sources in article, are less than they appear, for example, the NPR segment is real, despite the fatc tht it is linked ot youtube rather than to NPR, but Father Kirby is merely a "caller" (as the interviewer describes him) a young priest who phones in to talk about why he became a prirst.  I wish him a long and distinguished career, but he is not notable yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete not yet notable. Self published books do not normally provide notability; there are very few indeed that are exceptions and it takes very strong evidence . DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 15 September 2016 (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.