Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Groarke


 * 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. No clear consensus to delete; relisting this much is futile. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nikki Groarke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. News coverage appears to be just what any priest might receive in local newspapers. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Commment Unsure if Archdeacon's are notable enough or not. I note every other Archdeacon of Dudley has an article. Perhaps someone should consult WikiProject Anglicanism. Regional coverage comes up but I didn't have much time to look.  JT dale Talk ~ 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant coverage, of local interest only, fails WP:BIO. Archdeacon is not a claim to notability; in Anglicanism an archdeacon is a senior clergy position, above that of priest and below a bishop. Article has been up for almost a month. --Bejnar (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose deletion As the author of the entry I believe it is not contentious in any way. I am the verger of one the churches in the area covered by the archdeacon and the press release was issued by the Diocesan Press Officer to people like me for use in parish magazines etc. The press release is in the public domain. Like JT I note every other Archdeacon of Dudley has an article many have gone on to other senior Anglican positions. I have seen no other current material about her and in the light of the current interest in potential women bishops in the Church of England I believe the entry should remain. I have met her to talk to. I am more than happy for the entry to be amended in anyway to correct any factual inaccuracies. Every Archdeacon of Dudley since 1924 has been recoded with an entry and every Archdeacon of Worcester since the 13th century. DonBarton (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You appear to mistake verifiability for notability. Please see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; WP:ITEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not valid arguments against deletion. Do you think that it might be possible that in an effort to be comprehensive, that articles that fail to meet the notability standards of WP:BIO may have been written? --Bejnar (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (inform)  @ 21:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- We have articles on several other archdeacons, both in this and most other dioceses in England. I think the diocese of Worcester only has two archdeacons, so that this is not merely a matter of local interest.  This is not a post held by a mere priest; if it were, I would be voting ther other way.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are discussing this article, not others. We are discussing her notability under Wikipedia guidelines, not the status in the church of archdeacons. --Bejnar (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that by her appointment as an Anglican archdeacon, she has become notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if I read you correctly, your position is that archdeacons of the Anglican church are inherently notable? Please see the essay at Inherent notability, Subjective importance and note that at WP:COMMONOUTCOMES Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Communion bishops are generally found to be notable. WP:CLERGY, which means usually but not always found to be notable. An admitted "test case" ( Note: Wikipedia discourages such pointy behaviour. ) for the inherently notability of Anglican archdeacons was Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest) (2012); however, as a test case it failed because as one editor put it None of his roles or titles make him inherently notable, but the coverage and sourcing just puts him over the line. --Bejnar (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep While a sweep of British news did not reveal anything, there were sources elsewhere. Specifically, a news story about her, also another one here, and here, a mention here and a mention here, a mention here. While she may not be on the level of a pope or saint or hot clergyperson in a juicy scandal, I think she squeezes past the wiki notability test.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, news stories about her appointment in the local newspapers, and mere mentions. --Bejnar (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Clearly sorta borderline, but there are a considerable number of mentions and some direct coverage in local sources. Would probably just qualify as "notable". NickCT (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just mentins and local. --Bejnar (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article should follow the well-done format of her predecessor in the post. Pax 23:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you suggesting "keep"? --Bejnar (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The basis that keeps her predecessors' articles in the project. (I would not be adverse to a single large table article with all of these names redirecting to it.) Pax 09:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 16:02, 24 January 2015 (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.