Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriarch Elijah

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 merge to Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. slightly supervoting in the close but I can't see that a further relist will make this clearer and the demands of V & BLP require sources for individals so merging to the appropriate chrch article seems the best ciompromise between keep/merge that satisfies all the relevent policies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch Elijah[edit]

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

No indication at all of notability. There are no independent sources given, and Google searching produced none. (There are plenty of hits to non-independent and non-reliable sources, including Wikipedia, MySpace, blogspot, twitter, and sites which either clearly are or appear to be affiliated with the organisation that the subject of the article belongs to.) The article appears to be a promotional autobiography. A PROD was removed by an IP with no edits except to this article, with the edit summary "minor chage" (sic). JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate is a new structure, that's why there are no many sources. It needs some neutrality, but this is not a reason for deletion. Fijalkovich (talk —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC). Fijalkovich has made no edits except on this topic.[reply]

Is there any reason to fear vandalism to the article? As far as I can see there hasn't been any yet. In any case, that is not an issue for a deletion debate. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a new "structure" and has not yet received coverage in reliable sources then it has no yet established notability by Wikipedia's criteria, which is a reason for deletion. Besides, the issue is whether this particular individual is notable, not whether the "structure" to which he belongs is. If and when he has received substantial coverage in reliable third party sources an article on him will be fine, but if there aren't such sources an article on him is not acceptable, no matter what the reason for lack of such sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is rather known in catholic circle for fighting against Assisi and the ex-head of UGCC L.Huzar. Not sure if there is much about him in English, here is one of Ukrainian sources http://www.gk-press.if.ua/node/1021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijalkovich (talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that all patriarchs are notable - it doesn't whether they get recognised by Rome or not. The church's website now mentions him. St Anselm (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and protect from vandalism for some time. Fijalkovich (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. Not exactly a BLP1E case, but I don't see anywhere near enough independent coverage to support a BLP, nor do I see any independent coverage supporting the idea that a patriarchy established only two weeks ago is sufficient to create a presumption of notability. In any event, this is clearly not an appropriate title for the article, which if kept should be moved to the subject's birth name, under which the bulk of coverage seems to exist.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, where there is already some biographical information on him. If he meets notability criteria later through documentation in independent, third-party sources, a separate article will be justified. (Disclosure: I created the article on UOGCC.) --Chonak (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all patriarchs are notable. article should stay in its present state.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Reasons for re-listing: I found the reasons of keep mentioned till now to be invalid enough to be rejected outright. To mention that All patriarchs are notable has no basis on policy as far as I know. To mention that an article should be kept even though there are no sources (because some particular institution is new) goes against our verifiability pillar - which mentions that sources rather than truth defines the inclusion of any topic. Therefore, I find only the merge votes valid. But given the fact that ergo we have only two valid comments apart from the nominator's, this AfD is being relisted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyhow.. Passes wp:bio.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have a usual outcome in deletion debates that bishops (and equivalent) are notable. Since patriarchs are higher and more significant than bishops, the "all patriarchs are notable" argument is not as invalid as the relisting admin seems to think. St Anselm (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that bishops and such are inherently notable?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It's a common outcome. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/René Henry Gracida. St Anselm (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I don't think that's purely a keep just by virtue of being a bishop, but by the coverage that being one in the Roman Catholic Church almost always provides as compared to a more minor body like the Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the "History" section of this article still has no references, just as it had none when this deletion proposal was made. Is nobody trying to demonstrate notability by adding sources -- even non-English sources -- to the article? --Chonak (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to church article - All Bishops, or even Patriarchs, are not inherently notable. Yes, when it is a Catholic official or other major religious body they are almost always kept, but that should absolutely not be taken to apply to all religious institutions, especially a new one like this. As such, this cannot be kept as a separate article unless it passes the GNG. None of the sources providing significant coverage are independent, and therefore it does not. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (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.