Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert-Joseph Coffy


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Robert-Joseph Coffy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unverified article since its creation in 2007. A WP:BEFORE search only found sources with trivial coverage or works too closely connected with the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 16:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 16:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 16:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 16:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep the links provided, including in other language versions, verify his status as a Roman Catholic archbishop and cardinal. Based on his lifespan being before the Internet, his home newspapers being en Francais, it's reasonable to believe that he has significant RS offline coverage, but that may not be discoverable with even the best online search tools. While WP:BURDEN might suggest that this would argue for deletion, common sense must apply: you don't just have a cardinal archbishop in the 20th century about whom nothing has been written anywhere, and to the extent that anyone is or might soon be arguing that is the case, I suspect a WP:CIR failure. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * there is only a single link provided, not multiple links. Further, the source is basically a personal website by Gabriel Chow with no editorial oversight, and as such is a self published resource. As such, it doesn't meet the quality standards for RS required to meet GNG. While I certainly agree it's plausible off-line French language sources exist, it's my view that we favor deletion in cases where such sources aren't confirmable. We would never delete anything if we can just make a claim that sources exist without providing any real evidence that they do in fact exist. 4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't look in all the other language versions, but I did look in the French version of the article. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and it's time to parse the statement "We would never delete anything if we can just make a claim that sources exist without providing any real evidence that they do in fact exist."
 * do you understand what an Archbishop is? Do you believe there exists any Roman Catholic archbishop in the 20th century for whom no evidence of notability exists anywhere, to include sourcing that is offline or in other languages?
 * Do you understand what a Cardinal is? Do you believe there exists any Roman Catholic cardinal in the 20th century for whom no evidence of notability exists anywhere, to include sourcing that is offline or in other languages?
 * You may find WP:PAYWALL, WP:OFFLINE, WP:NONENG, and other related pages helpful in formulating your response. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Recently, an RFC overturned the assumption of notability with military officer ranks and frankly I think the same should apply to religious/ministerial positions. Yes, I do believe that some religious personnel of this standing may potentially lack significant independent RS and that presumed notability shouldn't be the standard approach utilized. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome to start that RfC if you so please, instead of just complaining about it in an AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Already ongoing for a while at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide.4meter4 (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources do not need to be in the article for it not to be deleted. We presume notability in this instance: there are almost certainly many, many offline sources in other languages. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep aside from the general point that there is ample precedent for keeping articles about cardinals, a Google books search shows up plenty of instances of people citing him, discussing his views and talking about initiatives he started. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. For all of the complaining here, and the assertions that evidence exists, not one keep vote has actually posted any sources here for us to examine and evaluate. Please do so if you were able to locate quality RS, otherwise it's just hearsay. Also, I looked at google books before nominating and disagree that there is significant RS to be found in a google books search. Other than actual books he penned himself, the sources that are visible only contain very brief mentions of the subject which are not substantial enough to be considered significant coverage. It's possible some of the non-visible sources have significant coverage, but's it's equally possible that the coverage is trivial.4meter4 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, actually, it's ridiculous for you to presume that a cardinal archbishop might lack reliable sourcing, and the WP:AGF interpretation is that you simply have no idea what you're talking about, all your assertions to the contrary. Your replies to my queries ignore that this is a pre-Internet prelate in a non-English-speaking country, both of which are unquestionably major factors in why coverage isn't just falling out of the sky. If you could go to Marseille, reading French, and review all the newspaper archives around Coffy's 1985 appointment as archbishop, do you really think that there would be not one single independent RS providing significant coverage of him? The reason you are getting so much pushback is that while your interpretation of the rules might be reasonable, your application of them clearly is not. No encyclopedic purpose is served by debating, much less deleting, Roman Catholic cardinals of the modern era. Withdraw this nonsense nomination lest it appear more WP:POINTy than it already does, please. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will gladly withdraw once multiple RS has been found and presented here or in the article. Until then, SIGCOV hasn’t been met.4meter4 (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV is met when RS'es exist, not when they're identified, and not when they're added to the article. That's what the presumption of notability means.  Keep reading and you find the following on the same policy page, under the WP:NEXIST section: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." This is exactly what I did with the thought experiment regarding newspaper archives in Marseille, and with which you have declined to engage. I suspect the reason you're seeing no one else support your position, regardless of whether any of us have successfully gone hunting for possibly offline sources likely to be found in French, is that the main two possibilities are that you have a very broken understanding of how much coverage Catholic archbishop cardinals receive, or that the entire AfD is a WP:POINT violation. Both of these are very bad optics, but the more you write here, the less there is an obvious third choice which would explain your position as both competent and in good faith. You again have a couple of choices: Continue to write here and possibly explain things better or possibly dig your hole deeper, or withdraw the AfD. Your choice. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep For a 20th century Cardinal of the Catholic Church, I am absolutely certain that sufficient RS for notability will exist. It is just a matter of finding them. I think there is likely a substantial amount of coverage of his ten years as Archbishop of Marseilles, and of his having been named as a Cardinal by the Pope, in the French newspapers. But, I don't even know how to search French newspapers from the 1980s and 1990s, and it seems no one else here does either. In a case such as this, in which RS are highly likely to exist, yet no editor has access to those RS, I think it is entirely legitimate to keep the article. And it is worth noting that every single editor who has chosen to comment on this AFD thus far has been in agreement with this; it is only the nominator who disagrees with this logic. I second User:Jclemens's call above, for the nominator to withdraw the nomination. Mr248 (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The obituary in Le Monde which found is clear proof of notability. Anybody who has an obituary published in one of the newspapers of record of a major country is very likely to be notable. And the obituary itself asserts his notability, by calling him a "théologien de référence" (literally "reference theologian", although "influential theologian" would be a more natural translation). It also notes his contributions to official reports on theology published by the  Catholic Church in France, and his contributions to politics (publicly opposing the far-right National Front party, campaigning against proposed changes to French citizenship laws, and promoting tolerance among diverse ethnic/religious/etc communities.) It notes he published a book Teilhard de Chardin et le socialisme, and their act of drawing attention to his published works shows they likely have some significance as well. And I'm sure if one of the major French national newspapers covered his death, other French media at the time would have covered it too, so there are very likely more French language media sources covering this, even if nobody has managed to find them. Mr248 (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Even if he had never risen beyond being Bishop of Gap, he would be notable as a bishop of the Catholic Church, but he spent 10 years as an archbishop and became a cardinal. The problem with the article is that it is still a stub.  Perhaps the French WP known more about him!  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The man was a cardinal-archbishop, for crying out loud! Diocesan bishops of major churches have always been considered to be notable by longstanding consensus and common sense. And WP:GNG is easily satisfied. Obituary in a major newspaper. Easily notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course someone who has a very senior position in the institution that has done more than any other to shape the Western world over nearly two millennia should have an article in any half-way comprehensive encyclopedia (let alone a fully comprehensive encyclopedia like this). It's only necessary to appeal to policies and guidelines in the questionable cases, not the obvious ones such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2021 (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.