Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cox (Catholic bishop)


 * 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 Although the validity of his ministry can be questioned there are multiple adequate sources as to the content of the article. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Cox (Catholic bishop)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There has been some BLP-related discussion of this article concerning claims that Cox performed sham marriages for minors, and this has led to closer examination of the rest of the article. What I'm seeing is that almost nothing about him is verifiable and notable except for the Sinead O'Connor ordination; there is some small activity on him in the Irish papers but I'm tending to the view that this material either presents BLP issues or isn't important. The claims about his affiliation in the article are almost certainly false, and either represent incorrect supposition on the part of editors or have no source at all. Ordinarily this would turn into a redirect but the other problem is that he isn't a "Catholic bishop" in the sense that most people would take that, and it's not clear that he even claims to be; he is a textbook example of an episcopus vagans. At the moment I would argue that he is a WP:BLP1E footnote in he singer's bio. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. There seems to be a supposition that we should have an article, or at least a stub, on every bishop of "mainstream" churches but that the same shouldn't apply to bishops of other denominations or independent bishops. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply: Cox's ordination of O'Connor has been covered by international media and was still being mentioned years later. His consecration of Bishop Pat Buckley was also newsworthy in the UK and Ireland.  He has received Irish media attention for his 'anti-abortion' ship; and for his stance on Traveller weddings.  Sources exist for all of these.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * where do you find Cox's "stance on Traveller weddings"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , in a Traveller's magazine, now included in the article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Undecided. WP:BLP1E. WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES states: "bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status", Cox is not such a bishop. Cox is known for being the man who ordained Sinead O'Connor and for conducting ceremonies involving Irish Travellers children who are under the impression that they are married when they are in fact not legally married (see relevant discussion on BLP noticeboard); i.e. "the weddings have no legal standing."
 * The first article cited by Bastun, directly above, mentions Cox once – for ordaining O'Connor. The second article mentions Cox twice – for consecrating Buckley, which points out a "controversy over the validity of his consecration", and for ordaining O'Connor. O'Connor has a separate article in which Cox is mentioned.
 * I think something about Cox and Buckley should be included in the section. Circa 1999, Cox and Buckley founded, what some news articles call, the "Latin Tridentine Church." Cox ministers to Travellers. Traveler practise child marriage. In 2002, Buckley "defended his right to give blessings to teenagers as young as 14, after it was reported he performed a ceremony involving a 15-year-old Traveller." "We have had cases like this before whereby the children actually believe they are legally married and it has taken a lot of effort to unwrangle everything," according to Father Stephen Monaghan, a Travellers' parish priest. There is a common thread of some kind of ceremonies involving children who are under the impression that they are married when they are in fact not.
 * Per User:BD2412 (below) it could be interesting. If the controversies are included. I think I found many of the online sources about him but found only single phrases or single sentences about what he believes – it is mostly controversy. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC); modified 21:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That was the first article I came across. The fact is, there are hundreds of such articles mentioning Cox. WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES is, of course, a red herring - it is an essay, which "summarizes what some editors believe are the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects." The fact remains that Cox is more notable than many Catholic bishops. I think you may be a little biased on this issue, BoBo. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * everyone has biases including me. Cox is far less notable than most Catholic bishops and not in the same category – they minister up to millions of people. His controversies are his notability. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- because he is a controversial figure. I thought that canonical consecration of bishops required it to be performed by three of them.  The validity of his consecration and of thus of his episcopal acts may well be questioned, but that is not a matter that WP needs to determine.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for comment. It made me think about changing my vote if more reliably sourced controversial content can be retained. Please look through the BLP noticeboard discussion and comment on some of those sources. Doubt about his consecration is only one controversy, another is about "some kind of ceremonies involving children who are under the impression that they are married when they are in fact not" as I described above. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on an AFD, which is about potential deletion, which I consider inappropriate. BLP issues should be resolved by editing, not by deleting.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep He's notable even if I don't like him. VanEman (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

-


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The sources do not demonstrate notability. Bishops in major religions ar notable because they head a notable eccesiatcial structure. This article gives little evidence that anyone actually recognizes Cox's eccesiastical authority, and even less that he heads a significant eccesiastical sturcture with multiple parishes and priests under him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep John Pack Lambert is confusing bureaucracy with notability. Someone can be notable without have a large organizational structure under them. They don't have to have accomplished anything to be notable. But they do need to be of interest to people and have enough written about them. That is the case here. So keep it. VanEman (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep having Catholic Bishop in the title might be confusing, it is to me. But this person is highly notable. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , please note there was already a Requested Move discussion ongoing when someone jumped the gun and AFD'ed the article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete "Cox is far less notable than most Catholic bishops and not in the same category – they minister up to millions of people"; "sources do not demonstrate notability. Bishops in major religions ar notable because they head a notable eccesiatcial structure. This article gives little evidence that anyone actually recognizes Cox's eccesiastical authority, and even less that he heads a significant eccesiastical sturcture with multiple parishes and priests under him". Suggestions have been made about articles where he should be mentioned. The ordination of a celebrity in a hotel bedroom (after six weeks of theological studies) should perhaps be mentioned in the article about Lourdes. 46.15.246.73 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that the above anon IP has specifically followed me here from a dispute at 2011 Norway attacks - they have edited no other article but that and it's talk page, and this AfD. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources provided support the argument that this is a person readers would be interested in looking up in an encyclopedia. bd2412  T 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete While there may be some points about notability that may be true, I don't personally believe this conforms with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. &mdash; Music1201  talk  00:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - He appears to be good at sometimes getting publicity, but there is zero evidence that he actually is a 'pastor to pastors' - actually a real, working bishop. If we let this guy get an article, every breakaway bishop would have to get one. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 07:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep He is notable. The only problem is that there is too few content in the article. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a crank, possibly a crackpot. But he is a crank who is widely covered in reliable sources.  I revised lede to make his self-proclaimed status clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep He's notable, and there's significant coverage about him, even if it's not for great things. Bruriyah (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with the above two comments verbatim. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:37, 14 April 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.