Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Schoen


 * 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 redirect to Bornem Abbey. The keep !votes failed to convince that there is indeed more than some mentions of this person. On the other hand, only a single person (other than the nom) !voted for outright deletion, with the rest agreeing that a redirect is the better solution. Regards  So Why  06:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Schoen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't find evidence of the required notability for this abbot. Neither searching for "Thomas Schoen" abt Bornem nor "Thomas Schoen" abbot Bornem gave me any significant reliable sources about him, just passing mentions like the one in the source given in the article. Fram (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * delete my searches fail to located sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Redirect to the abbey sounds fine here. He appears to have been a mitred abbot, which means that there are probably sources for him somewhere. The only problem being that we can't find them. Since it is a biography, I'm not comfortable keeping it without better sourcing found that can attest to the facts of his life, but this should be able to be recreated if someone can find sources (including offline ones). Edit: if that sourcing can be found, this history might be useful for recreation. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * At worst, Merge/redirect to his abbey, which has a list of some of the abbots. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. on at the least redirect. Heads of such major organizations are presumed notable, which means they are treated as notable unless it can be actually shown there are no sources to prove it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * what "major organization"? It's an abbey, many abbeys are and were really small or medium-sized affairs, not "major organisations". Heads of such "major organisations" are not "presumed notable", no idea where you get this. "they are treated as notable unless it can be actually shown there are no sources to prove it." is utter nonsense which I didn't expect from an admin. I can't prove a negative, and this is "never" requested at AfD. If you want to keep it, you have to show that he is personally notable based on sources, not on some imaginary rule for a "major" arganisation, which this isn't. Fram (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * DGG is right that being an abbot means that there will typically be enough sourcing to demonstrate notability and that this should be considered under WP:NPOSSIBLE. At the same time while he is dead and so doesn't have BLP protections, I'm not comfortable ignoring WP:V on any biographical article. Redirecting serves the purpose of balancing these two positions because it keeps the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, DGG is wrong. Many abbots are largely forgotten figures. Abbeys exist in all sizes and importances. Perhaps this one was important, but many abbots are hardly known at all. NPOSSIBLE is all fine and well, but not a reason to keep an article if no indication at all is given of said sources. Fram (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep on balance of things; being a subject of a portrait adds to the presumed notability IMO. Also, the prior abbot of the Bornem Abbey has an article. I suspect sources exist, most likely offline. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "being a subject of a portrait adds to the presumed notability IMO." No, not at all, anyone can have a portrait painted for himself or for the head of the organisation. . And his predecessor has an article because "He became the 74th Abbot-General of the Cistercian Order." which is a much stronger claim to notability. Fram (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It might well apply if it were a famous painter, but Jean Baptiste Anthony is not.  DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Jean-Baptiste Anthony, a minor artist in the low countries with a historicizing style popular around the fin de siecle, probably could support an article. Searches found his work mentioned in books in French and Dutch. his paintings  sell at auction.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Revisiting and, ran more searches searches, but I'm just not finding sources so, delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bornem Abbey. Having your picture painted doesn't make you notable, but having substantial independent sources written about you does.  I don't see that these exist for Schoen, but some of this content may be useful in an expanded article on the abbey itself.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:08, 31 May 2017 (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.