Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father Florian

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. Keep, but the article needs work. Sources exist to show GNG but the article would eventually need to reflect that. Tone 19:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Father Florian[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a contested prod. This person is supposed to be a prince, but he was born long after Germany became a republic and nobility there was abolished. It has been suggested that he is notable because of his missionary work. However he is only a prior, a rather junior post in the Roman Catholic hierarchy, I suggest that to be inherently notable you would have to hold some pretty senior post like Superior General of the Society of Jesus. PatGallacher (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rationale for deletion is, if I may say so, irrelevant to assessing notability. It’s coverage in reliable sources we are interested in, what can the nominator tell us about this? A quick search shows there are articles about him in Yahoo News, Münchner Merkur, Abendzeitung. Are we saying he is not notable because of what’s in the sources, or because of his junior royal and religious positions, or both? - dwc lr (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the above sources covering him, he has also been the subject of a 45 minute tv documentary ‘Pater Florian von Bayern – Die ungewöhnliche Mission des Wittelsbacher Prinzen’ so as I’m unsure on the grounds we are saying he lacks notability I’ll go with a keep. - dwc lr (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete There's nothing about his actual position that is notable, and his membership in a family of defunct nobility is especially irrelevant considering that he is (one presumes) celibate and likely to remain so. The latter familial relationship is the only real claim to notability made, anyway. Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with dwc lr.Cape Diamond MM (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The opening comment requiring Superior-General status of a major religious order for religious notability is an extreme and indefensible statement. Sources show that he is Prior of a Benedictine monastery and working in a mission country (Kenya), then the article merits notability. Whiteguru (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DWC LR. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs work. As a published author and missionary who has been written about in various news media, I think he is notable enough. Referencing is terrible for a BLP, though. Some possible sources: [1] [2] [3]. I think the article should not dwell too much on "royalty" and maybe use an infobox more suitable for monks / priests, though. —Kusma (t·c) 22:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.