Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Arattukulam


 * 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. BD2412 T 02:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael Arattukulam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

All of the sources for this article are from the diocese in which this individual worked, or are publications of the Roman Catholic Church. These sources are too closely connected to the subject, and therefore don't establish notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 05:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 05:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 05:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CLERGY and WP:NBISHOP. That is, 1) the Roman Catholic church is not considered too closely connected for its publications to contribute to notability, 2) The sources likely exist in local language(s) that have not been identified, or 3) both. I just cannot see deleting a verifiable Catholic bishop who existed before the Internet just because we can't conveniently find online sources about him. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Michael Arattukulam was a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore any sources by the Roman Catholic Church can not be considered independent per policy at WP:Verifiability. If this were any other organization we would be saying employers writing on their employees can't be considered independent when verifying notability. Bishops aren't exempt from basic sourcing policy. Like all biographical articles in all fields, secondary and tertiary sources other than the organization for which a person works need to be used to establish notability.4meter4 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One bishop does not control the Roman Catholic Church, which is a sprawling multinational bureaucracy with its own city-state and various religious trappings attached. Your position would be like saying something written by a U.S. Government agency about, for example, a House of Representatives member is not usable. To the contrary, WP:NBISHOP necessarily assumes that the Catholic Church itself is a sufficient reliable source for bishops who existed when there were not independent sources. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I hadn't considered that the Roman Catholic Church actually does have many similarities to a national government, and that its sources would be treated in the way that we treat other government sources. It's definitely given me food for thought.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * It is irrelevant in this case whether publications of the Roman Catholic church are sufficient to show that the subject is a bishop, because other sources can be found by simply clicking on "Books" in the nomination statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Bishops of major denominations are normally notable without more. This is not a BLP case, so that the kind of verification sought by the nom (though desirable) is not necessary.  The nom is seeking a kind of perfection that will not be easily achievable.  A source from within the diocesan office would not be independent, but Catholic publications nor closely connected to the individual are likely to be quite as good as newspapers.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the book sources that provide verification and Roman Catholic bishops articles are usually kept as per WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which is a form of case law or should be treated as such in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As shown by the campaign to kill articles on people like Michael J. Teh and Benjamin de Hoyos, we do not accept articles produced in any way by a religious group as reliable sources on people in leadership with that religious group. If we are going to show such views towards members of other religious groups, we need to do it for Catholics to, and delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you present any evidence of a "campaign" to kill articles about people who held office in a church with a couple of per cent of the adherents of the Roman Catholic church, and which has had an impact on the history of the West over the last 2000 years which is far less than that? And have you taken any notice of my edit above in which I point out that there are non-Catholic sources? I say all this as an atheist who holds no allegience to any church. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium  05:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLERGY, as well as the significant coverage of this individual that can be found in print, particularly their contribution to Vatican II. I would also consider the sources of the Catholic Church to be sufficiently independent from this Bishop to be contribute to establishing his notability, unless said source has been generally depreciated or found unusable for those purposes. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep due to WP:NBISHOP--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2021 (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.