Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Kearney


 * 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   delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter Kearney

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN guideline for political nobility (he did not win election to the Scottish Parliament) or WP:BASIC guideline for other activities. There are plenty of sources for him speaking for the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, (eg1) but not him personally. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or failing that Revert back to this version. The worst problem with the article as it currently stands is horrible, horrible soapbox snippets like "those in Scotland who still uphold an anti-Catholic bias" and "Kearney is often attacked by dogmatic secularists, and anti faith bigots." However, that is only a recent addition and we should really consider the pre-soapbox version. But I agree with the nominator that there's not enough coverage to justify an article. Most of the media coverage about him personally was related to the election in 1999 (and not in the tone that Ton vore is using), and I agree that simply acting as a spokesperson for a notable organisation doesn't confer independent notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsuccessful former candidate, currently a soapbox for the subject, previously looks like a soapbox for someone else. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and tidy up - he was on the front page of The Herald yesterday, and is a very weel kent figure in Scottish public life. There are quite literally hundreds of reliable ext sources pointing to his notability. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He was speaking on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, which is a clearly notable organisation. I don't see any evidence to suggest the individual is notable independent of that organisational notability, ie the sources are saying "RCC media director PK says", rather than "PK, who is media director of the RCC". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Mais oui! (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC) --Mais oui! (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I've seen a fair bit of coverage in independent sources which is about the individual, not about some faceless spokesman.      &c. If somebody's asserted notability has arisen in the course of their job, I think it would be very silly to expect notability to be established by sources which don't touch on their job - could we prove that Joseph Stalin was notable without any reference to Soviet leadership? I do have some concern about WP:NOTNEWS though, if notability arises from current events rather than a previous election. bobrayner (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a silly analogy. Most people could name another (if not all) leader of the Soviet Union. I doubt if anyone (other than perhaps the subject himself!) could name another media director of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. His "notability" (such as it is) is completely derived from being a spokesman for the RCC in Scotland. Any significant statements he makes should be noted on the articles relating that body. We don't even know if these are his opinions (they might be, but that would be supposition) or if he is merely reading a prepared statement. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: Really just reporting on him as a mouthpiece, as he has trumpeted outrageous statements he has made for his employer.  There are very few media spokepeople or failed candidates who are notable, and not seeing it here.--Milowent • talkblp-r  02:52, 11 December 2010 (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.