Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodor Komogovinski

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor Komogovinski[edit]

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

Having done a wp:before search, this appears to me to be a non-notable person. Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced. nothing in gnews. gbooks just lists LLC Books which uses WP as a reference. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Saints are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wp rule that -- without more -- individuals who the Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church insert into the list of all Serbs holy martyrs for faith are notable? I wasn't aware, if this is the case -- can you point us to the wp guideline? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of an actual guideline to that effect. However, I think it is generally accepted on Wikipedia that saints are notable. It's certainly my personal opinion. If they're notable nough to be canonised by a mainstream church then presumably they're notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Normally when an established editor makes such a statement, if he/she is merely voicing a personal opinion, rather than reflecting wp guidelines, I find it helpful for them to clarify that. Especially when it is a sysop speaking -- otherwise, I (and perhaps others as naive as I am) could mistakenly take the sysop to be reflecting wp policy, rather than personal opinion. I also am not aware of any such rule or guideline on wp. I would think that any notable saint or martyr -- whether of the Serbian Orthodox Church, some Muslim offshoot, a Bahai sect, etc. -- if truly notable should be able to satisfy wp's notability criteria, with significant coverage in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - saints are notable. He seems better known in English as Theodore of Komogovina. HeartofaDog (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same issues as are discussed above seem to plague this, whichever name is used to search for substantial RS support of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I am willing to grant that saints may have inherent notability, I also note that notability requires verifiable evidence. The article has none. Are there any? --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think we may well need someone fluent in Serbian to find evidence of notability, although I'm sure it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just did some quick edits, adding an alternative and a Serbian name to article, with three new sources. He may also be called Saint Theodore Tyron, based on a comparison of the english version [1] and the Serbian version [2] which contains the text "Светог Теодора Тирон" (Saint Theodore Tyron with Google Translate). He does seem to be notable, perhaps even outside of Serbian Orthodoxy as well if the Theodor Tyron name is him. I cannot contribute further as I must go, but I think the extra search terms I provided would make it easier for other editors to find even more sources. —CodeHydro 15:04, 7 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CodeHydro. It looks like the article has been rescued. Certainly, if he's a saint, one would expect him to be notable, and it looks like this has been established. St Anselm (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. I do have to agree with Necrothesp, BTW, that there must be a presumption of notability especially for somebody whose sainthood was proclaimed as recently as 1966. Whether he is known outside the Serbian Orthodox Church should not matter, and guidelines make clear that it is the notability of a person or thing within their particular context that matters, not whether other people have heard or care about them. Sainthood is amongst other things a mark of notability given by a church. Once notable always notable comes into play here as well. --AJHingston (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major religion has declared him a saint. Notability is obvious by rule of common sense. Dream Focus 11:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur that saints at this level are notable, agree that that claim of notability has now been verified through reliable sources. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm unconvinced that any policy has been pointed to that "saints are notable", the rationale of some here. I think they are notable if there is substantial support for notability, and note that some others believe that is (now) the case. But if people want to create a wp guideline that saints are notable, I suggest they do so -- along with describing what indicia of sainthood suffices, and what religions or sects of religions or religious leaders are sufficient to so denote someone (I note that many terrorists have been declared martyrs, for example, and wonder how slippery these slopes are).--Epeefleche (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "I note that many terrorists have been declared martyrs". By a genuine mainstream church? Really? That's the point here. The Serbian Orthodox Church is not an obscure sect, but a mainstream church with a membership of millions. I think we ought to accept the notability of saints canonised by such churches. And also acknowledge, as always, that notability guidelines are not set in stone and that failing to meet a set of rigid criteria is not and never has been (and never should be) a reason for deletion on Wikipedia. Nobody has ever claimed that there is a policy that all saints are notable, but it is common sense to accept that saints acknowledged by major churches are notable. If we insist on only accepting articles on subjects with wide internet coverage (which is not and never has been a Wikipedia policy, incidentally, although many editors with deletionist tendencies seem to have a mysterious and increasingly strident belief otherwise) then we are in danger of becoming an encyclopaedia of modern English-speaking pop culture and not a true global encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (1) When assessing notability of anyone from a country with a Cyrillic alphabet, be sure to search on the Cyrillic name, I've rescued a number of articles using this method. (As always, you must be careful when using Google translate for unfamiliar languages, but you may be able to verify key facts or determine that the subject appears to be notable.) (2) I looked for prior AfDs on saints to see if any general consensus existed. There are a number of articles on fictional saints that have been deleted, just like other non-notable fictional personas. Same for hoaxes,see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Ermintrude of Nard (May 2007). In May 2009, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Evilasius (Executioner), the article was kept (after improvement and name chance helped prove notability. I could not find any verifiable true saint articles that have been deleted.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Did you find any AFDs that were kept where -- as was the case here, at the outset -- the article said that the person was a saint, but lacked substantial RS coverage of the person and failed to meet any other wp notability guidelines? Or were they all articles where GNG or other notability guidelines were met?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:27, 8 June 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.