Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giles Butler

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, Creator supports deletion, no evidence that article meets the relevant notability guideline and is only the bishop of a small church making the usual presumption that bishops are notable less applicable in this case. Davewild (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Butler

Not notable, completely unreferenced. Fails Google Test. Note that although he is a bishop, it is of a rather small splinter sect. Prodded earlier, but since I'm a noob and forgot to put a reason, prod was removed. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I'm not Roman Catholic. I don't generally see much notability in small splinter groups that appear to be splitting from Rome on the basis that Rome has split with the 'real' church. But as an American Episcopalian, I have similar feelings about the bishops and clergy that are splitting from my church. Take the possible bias as you will. Still, while there are clearly some notable groups that don't fully recognize the current Pope (because they have significant followings) this one doesn't appear at the moment to be one of them. On that basis, delete. -- BPMullins | Talk 01:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and no sources. Do we really need an article for every single priest or bishop in the world? Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, lack of sources. Fails WP:BIO. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, bishops have been considered notable in the past. There seem to be only three bishops in this hierarchy though the number of adherents is unclear. The biggest problem is that there isn't a good definition of traditional Catholic. --Dhartung | Talk 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even without the usual references, bishops (like members of a national or sub-national legislature) are probably notable. --Eastmain (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Important thing to note is that even though he's a bishop, its of what is basically a splinter sect. Also the lack of external references is problematic. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm trying to determine more about how fringe this group is. There is some context at Ngo_Dinh_Thuc#Sedevacantism. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's this from Karl Keating (a dialogue with Louis Vezelis, who consecrated Butler). I feel there's a level of recognition at least to that level, but what we probably need is an article on the breakaway Franciscan Order. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bishops of major churches with a territorial organisation are notable, as major figures in their communities, with administrative responsibilities, and invariably articles about their work in appropriate sources. Bishops of a small splinter group are notable only if significance can be actually shown by sources. (Parallel to the mayor of a large city being notable, of a small town only in the unusual cases if there is clearly reliable evidence, or if notable in some other respect, such as authorship. ) Based on [1] this is a denomination with a total of 6 clerics, of whom 4 are bishops. The order might be worth a Wikipedia article, for we have been inclusive about even small religious groups with an actual existence, so as not to avoid making spiritual distinctions. But not the individual people associated with it. For the record, the group's publications include a useful checklist of other splinter Catholic groups that they consider as illegitimate at the generally recognized RC church. [2].

I created this page and I support its deletion; and yes, by the post-Vatican II Church's standards, this Bishop and his Order would be considered very small/fringe. Bay17832Bay17832 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Order has 6 members - 2 of which are Bishops. 2 are Priests. 2 are Brothers. Bay17832Bay17832 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also this page was already deleted last year and I re-created it. All the more cause for re-deletion. Bay17832Bay17832 (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2008 (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.