Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Aruakpor

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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Aruakpor[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)

Insufficient significant coverage to be considered notable by WP:BIO. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Catholic bishops of dioceses are de facto notable for Wikipedia. Is this not the case for Anglicans? Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bishop of a major denomination. Per WP:BISHOPS. Sourcing appears scant but do we know if there are alternative spellings of his name? Suggest this should be tagged to get more eyes on it from appropriate wiki projects. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need an indepdent, 3rd party source. Presumed notability is to guide in suggesting what will have sourced, but we cannot use internal Church directories to substitute for actual 3rd party indepdent sources. The assumption of notability cannot overcome a total lack of reliable sourcing. the only people who are actually de facto notable that we only have to prove exist are elected members of national and first unit sub-national legisltures, members of governmental cabinets, and top level national judges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a passing mention but considering this previous deletion discussion [1] I really do not see how this could end up closing anything but a force delete without us favoring some religious leaders over others. The sourcing related to Christensen was far more substantial than anything found on Aruakpor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources out there. See this [2] and this [3] This [4] has passing mention. Here [5] is another source. This [6] may also be a usable source. Here is another source [7] that mentions Aruakpor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also found four books that seem to mention him under his longer name but was frustrated by inability to search them to check out the references. I think there is more out there. I just haven't found it yet. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anglican bishops have always been considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as a biship of a major denomination. Pity we do not yet have an article on his diocese. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 8 March 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.