Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Whittaker

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. –SpacemanSpiff 00:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Whittaker[edit]

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

Delete are bishops inherently notable? There is basically nothing here in this bio - like I assume he's no longer alive, but we're not told that, nor when he died, nor anything else he did...in essence this is a non-bio and hardly encyclopedic. The fact that this guy was bishop for the years he was is duly documented in the article on the diocese so nothing would be lost by deleting this.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Diocese of Medak. There is a policy (don't remember which) that says that being the first one of something is inherently notable, but doesn't pass WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, whichever would apply. Of course, there is absolutely no content here other than to indicate that he was the bishop for that period of time, and that fact is covered in entirety in the diocese article. Ivanvector (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and a comment: Why did this come to AfD anyway? This is an easy candidate for a bold redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See the coverage in Life magazine and the reference in a book to Whittaker's earlier role as principal of a theological college in Medak. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, keep with your additions. Nicely done. Ivanvector (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Eastmain above--Sodabottle (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Bishops in Major ?Christina denominations are generally notable. The problem with this article is that it is a mere stub, in need of expansion. His membership of a board of governors is however not appropriate content for a succession box. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keap. With Eastmain's additions there's also a plausible case for WP:PROF #6. And in any case WP:GNG seems to be met. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources, should be more written about him. MiRroar (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems good now. Another nice save from Eastmain :) fetchcomms☛ 04:03, 30 January 2010 (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.