Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan de Cervantes

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) AutomaticStrikeout 19:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juan de Cervantes

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

No assertion of notability. Simply holding a relatively high position in an organization is not enough to be notable. Provided link is little more than a directory listing of all clergy from a given time period. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is very lacking in extent and it needs references, but the subject itself seems very notable based on a Google books search. - Mr X 02:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This book indicates he held many important church positions. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cardinals aren't those "holding a relatively high position in an organization." They are second in the Catholic church hierarchy after the pope, and form a college to elect the pope and to advise a pope. All living cardinals have articles on them. As can be expected they are involved in the politics of the Vatican and there is coverage based on that: http://books.google.com/books?id=J0JyBbofwdIC (page 95), http://books.google.com/books?id=8RE9AAAAIAAJ (pages 56,68, 70, 91), http://books.google.com/books?id=HLbM2eaJUTsC pages 262, 352; http://books.google.com/books?id=5R_2clxgcr4C The bio isn't a listing of clergy, it is a listing of cardinals. Per WP:BASIC there is sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party, independent secondary sources, which combined with the church bio can form a start-class article. Churn and change (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do all cardinals throughout all history have pages? I don't believe that even all Popes have pages...ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they have. On both counts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cardinal has been covered by reliable secondary sources, as has been demonstrated by the books provided above. Meets the general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 09:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You're trying to delete an article about a cardinal, one of the most senior officials of the world's largest church?! Good grief. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm willing to concede that Catholic cardinals have presumptive notability, even if we didn't have anything substantive to back this one up, which we do. As to ReformedArsenal's question, all popes have articles. All living cardinals have articles. Most deceased cardinals have articles, although redlinks are generally more common the further back you go (and the Pornocracy-era cardinals are pretty much all redlinks due to a lack of surviving documentation). There's nothing wrong with this article making one of those red links blue. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per presumptive notability argued above. I think it's snowing. St Anselm (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious notability, and with references. First Light (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2012 (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.