Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Vellanickal


 * 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. I can't see a consensus to delete here. The discussion (which was in several places was happily nuanced) acknowledges that the subject has a measure of notability, but there was disagreement as to whether it reached the level of sufficiency necessary for a separate article. Since it's already been relisted, I'm ended this one as no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Vellanickal

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As a scholar he fails WP:PROF, since his doctoral thesis has been cited 18 times, but that's about it. As a churchman, he is was a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and is vicar general of Changanassery, but neither of those positions seem inherently notable.. StAnselm (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to be notable, sounds like a resume. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If he is a member of Pontifical Biblical Commission then that would appear to be notable, but I can't see clear evidence that he actually is a member. In the WP article on the Pontifical Biblical Commission it says "The Pontifical Biblical Commission is a committee of Cardinals" but the subject does not appear to be a cardinal. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC).
 * I had assumed he was one of the "consultors", but I can't get any confirmation either. StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that any Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church is ex officio notable but it seems that the subject is not one of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Consultor to the Oriental Congregation, apparently. See here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And no, not a cardinal. He's not on this list. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Fails WP:PROF, and his roles as consultor to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and vicar general of Changanassery don't seem quite enough for notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and he is one of three vicars general there, by the way. StAnselm (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This discussion does raise the question of the ex officio notability of clergy of major denominations who hold leadership positions. There don't seem to be WP guidelines on this. I suggested that in the church of Rome Cardinals would be notable. Would this extend to bishops? Where would it stop? I note that this subject is one rank below a bishop. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC).
 * That's a very good point, and it's a pity there are no good guidelines. By analogy with WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN, I would argue that you could perhaps take ex-officio notability down to bishops, but I don't think you can possibly take it further than that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been working with bishops as the rule of thumb. StAnselm (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am also inclined to include bishops ex-officio. If the false information in this article-that the subject is a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission- is removed I would be prepared to vote keep as the input to doctrine as an consultor is important. One problem is that a large number of inferior articles have been created by this creator and the adequate ones can get lost in a flood of dross. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Good point; it may be appropriate to flag the article for rescue. I've tried to rescue articles by this creator before and failed; the key issue will be whether there are any sources describing his work as consultor, rather than just stating the bare fact.
 * I don't think being one of three vicars general is notable. Taking another look at the article, though, I saw (buried at the bottom) "President, Paurastya Vidyapitham (Pontifical Oriental Institute of Religious Studies)," which may contribute to notability. However, the article is woefully short of reliable third-party references (and one of the ones that exists says simply "I'd like to thank Dr Vellanickal"). -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep meets WP:PROF for his administrative role a head of a seminary.  That by alone is sufficient. Not that he seems to be a bishop, but we have generally included bishops of territorial churches as notable, on the basis that there administrative role is sufficient.    DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think headship of the seminary, as a key to notability, will depend on its size (I don't know what that is), but that is probably the key notability claim. I don't think being one of three assistants to the bishop counts as notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 07:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 07:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. I feel that he meets enough criteria overall to be notable and applicable to Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 07:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, seminary administrator and not-bishop. Author of a lot of monographs which don't get cited. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:30, 29 March 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.