Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Flanagan (former Minister)


 * 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/keep. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Flanagan (former Minister)

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

An ex Minister? I can see no reason for inclusion Fails. WP:BIO Paste Talk 17:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC) the article meets this criteria. --Alpha166 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is supported by a newspaper article, http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewarticle/c343_a10164/News/New_York/Neighborhoods.html -- Eastmain (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree there is an article but what notability does it confer? Paste Talk 18:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eastmain --Alpha166 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BIO, "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.""
 * Comment As the author Alpha166 I am sure that you do believe that the article should be kept, however WP:BIO states:- A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This subject has only one article written in a specific subject paper. I can find many people with articles about them in local and national papers but they do not all warrant an article on Wikipedia. Paste Talk 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Paste. He's only been covered once in one paper. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are forgetting the fact that he mentioned in several other sources, not just that newspaper--Alpha166 (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Herbert Bomzer, a professor of Talmud and Jewish studies at Yeshivah University and author of “The Chosen Road”, who teaches a class for converts, considers Flanagan's case particularly notable given Michael Flanagan's deep involvement in Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha166 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This particular person is sufficiently notable, and the sourcing is jut enough to carry it. The Jewish Week is an accepted RS for this general subject field . DGG (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can accept the first reference as a RS, but not the others. I wouldn't call that single article significant coverage. Decltype (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because the nominator has it wrong, see reasons below. The article is new, created on 6 January 2009 and like many new submissions does need polishing. A Cleanup tag would be more appropriate at this very early stage. Had the nominator looked further he would have seen that there is a disambiguation page for Michael Flanagan with each entry getting a "suffix" such as Mike Flanagan (American football) (he is not a "football" he is a US football player); Mike Flanagan (baseball) (he is not a "baseball" he is a baseball player); Mike Flanagan (footballer) (this one has it closer, he is an English soccer player); and Michael Patrick Flanagan who doesn't need a "(____)" suffix since he has "Patrick" as middle name. So now, one can clearly see how Michael Flanagan (former Minister) needs "(former Minister)" purely as a suffix in order to (a) distinguish him from the articles about the four other Michael Flanagans. (b) It must state what is unique about him, that he is by training a "minister", and (c) for the sake of accuracy and completion he is no longer a minister, hence the need for "former" because he left the Christian ministry and converted to Judaism. Very unusual and noteworthy indeed. Therefore, (d) it makes him all the more extraordinary and a clear case of qualifying for WP:N as well as (e) qualifying for WP:BIO and (f) there are definitely WP:RS to back this up. The article was only submitted a few days ago and instead of running to axe it, it is kindly requested that it be taken to WP:TALKJUDAISM where the resident experts on these kind of Judaic topics could and should be given more time to improve and review it and give input. Note also, (g) User  had once noted  in Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. Finally, note (h) Don't demolish the house while it's still being built: "An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub and edited, and expanded, rather than simply deleted." On the basis of points (a) - (h), The nominator is kindly requested to withdraw the nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   IZAK (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I don't feel that I have it wrong at all. By putting 'An ex minister?' at the beginning of the nom' I was merely indicating that this is not a reason for the subject to have an article, it was in no way querying the title of the article which seems completely correct. If the consensus is that the article is kept or deleted I will have no issue but I do wish the AfD to run its course. My personal opinion is of course that the article should be deleted as the subject being non notable. Paste Talk 11:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:10, 9 January 2009 (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.