Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike McGurk


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ivor Browning (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Mike McGurk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete It is of a minor priest and doesn't include details about his career — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Browning (talk • contribs) 07:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 31.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Offline 07:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm holding off on a final !vote for now, but I disagree that an archdeacon is a "minor priest." Though Anglicans use the terminology a little differently than you might expect, archdeacons are actually pretty high-ranking within Anglicanism - they're almost like assistant bishops. When we have a named article like Archdeacons in the Diocese of Liverpool, of which there were only 2 at any one time until very recently, I am inclined to err on the side of inclusion for holders of the office. But I will wait to see what others have to say. MarginalCost (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Liverpool is a relatively modern diocese, so that there has been little opportunity for a long succession, but we commonly have had articles on Anglican archdeacons and Cathedral deans. They are not assistant bishops, but have an administrative responsibility covering a diocese or part of one.  In some dioceses, the suffrigan bishop does this job as well as a bishop's own.  Elsewhere it is a freestanding post.  Many previous holders of the office have articles, as so the other three archdeacons in the diocese.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - we have more often than not kept such articles. Note that the Episcopalian Archdeacon is ordinary, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk)
 * Keep as per WP:Outcomes detailed above, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not typically keep clergy below the rank of a bishop unless they are independently notable from RS coverage. This is reflected in WP:OUTCOMES which oddly appears to have been miscited above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Archdeacons are high enough up in the Church of England hierarchy to be considered notable on the basis of their position. We have many stub articles on archdeacons of the Church of England, and I see no reason to delete any of them. I also question the motives of Ivor Browning in nominating this article for deletion when an article he wrote about a Liverpool priest is currently being discussed for deletion -- seems rather WP:POINTy to me. BabelStone (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (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.