Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Murphy (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 delete.  So Why  07:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Mark Murphy (priest)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Standard parish priest and university chaplain. The coverage he receives is run of the mill stuff you would expect after an ordination or in a small town after a priest transition in local sources. In short: he fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Murphy is notable through his position as Catholic Chaplain at one of the most notable and recognizable universities in the world (Harvard University) in addition to the multiple television, academic and local coverage he receives as indicated in the many reliable secondary sources that are referenced in the article. As Wikipedia notes: ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.""(WP:GNG) — Preceding unsigned comment added by William2929 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete: There are multiple references here, and I agree with William2929 (talk)  Murphy is not your average Catholic Priest, but I think the References are not RS.. .mostly blog level, and some smaller catholic pubs. I could imagine a few more solid references from legit RS sources, would move this to a keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: User:William2929 has certainly put in a blizzard of sources, but in his analysis of WP:GNG, he leaves out one critical element: that reliable sources must also provide "significant coverage" about the subject. The Pilot and the Crimson are reliable enough sources, but they only mention Murphy in passing, and that much as quotes from him (which longstanding consensus holds does not support notability of the one quoted).  The many blogposts, YouTube clips and primary sources listed cannot, of course, support notability.  Further, William2929's claim that the subject's post at Harvard confers notability is supported by no guideline or criterion.   Ravenswing   04:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep While the detractors do have some points, I believe that, considering the totality of sourcing, the GNG is met. There's clearly more cleanup work to be done on the article, and the bare URL references are hard to evaluate, but I don't see a need to delete the article.  While it is a BLP, Fr. Murphy clearly does not appear to be non-public figure. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: What sources in the article do you believe satisfy the GNG's requirement of "significant coverage" from reliable sources? If the subject received mere namedrops from the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN, they wouldn't satisfy the GNG.  If he received five thousand word comprehensive biographies from blogposts, YouTube or primary sources, they wouldn't satisfy the GNG. 0+0+0 still equals zero.   Ravenswing   08:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:Basic states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The various sources listed in the article are an example of that. Additionally, the Youtube link which show dozens of clips of his celebration on the nationally televised channel "CatholicTV" are of his frequent celebration of the Mass on live TV. In other words, they are not random Youtube clips, but are videos from actual TV appearances. His position of eminence or being high prolife as the Catholic Chaplain at Harvard and St. Paul Parish in Cambridge contributes to notability. Keep in mind that WP:Bio notes that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." — Preceding unsigned comment added by William2929 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could definitely use more comments to support either side of the argument.
 * To be perfectly blunt: the Catholic campus ministry at Harvard is not one of the high profile North American campus ministries, and arguably not even within the Boston area because of the presence of Boston College, which has a pretty well known model. Even if notability were inherited, which it isn't, being the chaplain at Harvard isn't a big deal within even the relatively isolated world that is CCMs in North America. In terms of him doing priest stuff: sure, he celebrates a mass that is recorded. That's no big deal and is pretty run of the mill. We expect priests to say mass, its kind of their job. If there is substantial commentary on him saying mass on TV or being a televangelist like Fulton Sheen, that would be notable, but I haven't seen that. As I mentioned in my mom, the publications we have are pretty standard stuff for ordinations and priest transfers. If I wanted to, I could do a pretty decent job of rounding up similar coverage of ordinations and whatnot for most North American priests ordained recently or who have celebrated a sacerdotal jubilee in this century. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 15:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow new !votes to be addressed.
 * Delete -- I see nothing in the bio to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- notability is not inherited from Harvard University, and there's no SIGCOV that establishes the subject's individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, he's the undergraduate Catholic chaplain, not the general Catholic chaplain, and only a parochial vicar at St. Paul's. Sourcing is weak and it's probably too soon.--Jahaza (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  17:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability's about significant independent recognition of a subject, and here we predominantly have sources from institutions the subject is affiliated with (St. Paul's, Harvard, etc.); these do not go to GNG. As for idea being a chaplain at Harvard is intrinsically notable, I don't see any policy to support that, and moreover as others have pointed out, Father Murphy isn't even the senior Catholic chaplain there (further still the senior Catholic chaplain is still lower ranking than other chaplaincies there, for instance for instance the Memorial Church chaplaincy which confers a named professorship). For that and likewise for the fact that he's celebrated televised Mass: if it were notable, we wouldn't have such a hard time coming up with significant independent coverage of it. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Innisfree. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2017 (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.