Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Nadeem

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. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Nadeem

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

Tamgha-e-Imtiaz fouth in order, not of real importance. Nothing in the coverage. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- National head of a Catholic order and involvement with Interfaith council might just push him into notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hagiography, perhaps appropriate to the topic, but this man has not yet been sainted. Any real indication of notability is difficult to discern beneath the pious gloss. Sandstein 07:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provincials are typically not considered notable, unlike bishops. Any coverage he would have received would be routine for his position, and since we don’t have a history of keeping provincials, I’m inclinded to support deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2018 (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.