Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kuzhinapurath


 * 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  No consensus. Given the circumstances surrounding the other articles in this group, it is understandable that this one is viewed with some suspicion. However, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

John Kuzhinapurath

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another non-notable priest/monk from the Kuzhinapurath Family. He didn't make it beyond deacon as far as I can tell. VG &#x260E; 21:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the article shows little sign of notability, apart from leaving his original church (with a mentor) to start a branch of the Catholic church. Clearly NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not clear to me that this is NN.  I think it needs a good going over and a search for sources.  Merger to Kuzhinapurath Family may be indicated. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The discussion at this related AfD may be relevant. VG &#x260E; 08:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to be the subject of significant coverage. Satisfies N. Wily D  10:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is he? where is it? can you link to the five most notable sources? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In order 1) Yes; 2) Take a look at the article; 3) Possibly, though I'm not sure. Cheers, Wily D  12:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has one source of dubious quality (written by the guy who wrote the article) - how does that establish notability? How does that indicate significant coverage? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhm - please review the article before asserting things about it. Your statement about sources is flatly false.  Two sources are presented, by different authors (the second a collection of authors). Wily D  13:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well let me tell you... you are complete right. Sorry about that - I'm getting mixed up with another article in this walled garden. Apologies. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 13:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Fr. John being the only priest of the historic event of reunion he is notable. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Unlike the subjects of other articles in the walled garden he is notable:
 * Per reason provided by WilyD
 * The subject is one of the 5 behind reunion with Catholic church (ref Image:Five_Pillars.jpg). Another among the five is on the path to sainthood in catholic church. This was a significant event considering the million people involved and the coverage then. Also need reference citing the contribution of John Kuzhinapurath in the reunion. Having a photograph with Mar Ivanios and naming it "five pillars" doesn't make him one of the 5 behind. Also, the first sentence of the article that he is the first priest who reunited is bogus, unless bishops behind the movement are not considered as priests.
 * Superior General of Seminary. Ref need to be added.
 * Article should be cleaned up to meet wiki standards and focus need to be on the positions he held and his contributions. Need to delink from the Kuzhinapurath family propoganda.. --Jacob.jose (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2008 (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.