Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Olden


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Olden

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG: Unable to identify any demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. — swpb T 17:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — swpb T 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — swpb T 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — swpb T 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete as it stands not well sourced enough for a BLP, no evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Article doesn't include (and cannot seemingly find) reliable sources that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. To meet GNG and SIGCOV, at least some of the supporting material would be about the person (ie: the person would be the primary topic of the article/book/whatever). Here however we only see/find material which mentions the person (ie: something else is the primary topic of the articles/etc, and the person is just mentioned). While the latter type of material meets WP:VER for inclusion of content about a subject, it does not meet WP:NN for creation of an entire article about a subject. Guliolopez (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The line about "as a historian Dr Olden would have contributed" is a shouting line saying there are no sources and nothing to cite. The acticle lacks sourcing to justify it existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think heading a small seminary, even if it's the main one in its country, is enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this is a significant enough institution to qualify under WP:PROF, maybe not in size but certainly in stature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - vicar generals and monsignors are common enough that they are not automatically notable. Fails my standards, but I'm willing to be convinced overwise, so ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - president of the "National Seminary for Ireland" seems significant enough that there should be plenty for GNG even if it isn't online, and it may qualify under WP:PROF#6. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. clearly meets WP:PROF as effective head of a major theological college. Nothing more needs to be shown.  DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One more note about Maynooth, almost(?) all of the former presidents have pages. Most are notable beyond being president of Maynooth, but not all. Some pages are stubs.Smmurphy(Talk) 13:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF, but also separately notable as president of a significant national institution, and in my personal opinion only, also independently notable as a catholic archbishop. Thparkth (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that he isn't a Catholic archbishop (or even a bishop); had he been then he would be notable beyond any doubt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're quite right - I misread the relevant section of the article. Thparkth (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Keep as the President and Chancellor positions at 2 different schools is enough by all means and there's enough for WP:PROF alone. SwisterTwister   talk  04:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- notability has been sufficiently demonstrated. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 23 October 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.