Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Galvin

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 no consensus. While there are 4 keep !votes opposed to 5 delete !votes, apart from the nominator's rationale, the contentions of both the sides seem significantly valid. Summating these discussions, I don't see evidence supporting consensus to delete the article. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 19:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Galvin[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nineteen references from twelve different sources should be enough to establish the notability of the second in command of the world's largest Catholic fraternal organization and a Knight of St. Gregory. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - references are trivial or not in-depth. All are very brief mentions of the subject and lack substance. reddogsix (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I added a few more substantive sources. I think these, combined with his position and the cumulative effect of the lesser sources, is enough to establish notoriety.--BrianCUA (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet - Where? reddogsix (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mostly through this edit, with most of the information coming from the Our Sunday Visitor article and Kaufman's book. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like someone who had a prominent role as a lawyer in a small town. I don't see the notability myself, as the references for the opening line only have trivial mentions of him. Or like this book, which quotes him as a "leader" in the organisation: [1] Also I'm not familiar enough with the organisation to assume he would be presumptively notable for his role, and would be open to keeping him if more sources could be found as they relate to his role with the organisation, but I couldn't find any of them easily. SportingFlyer talk 23:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Timothy Galvin is a fairly big fish in a small pond. There are so many small communities in the world that including entries like Mr. Galvin's would not only make Wikipedia unusable, but it would bankrupt Wikipedia as well due to the server cost. In addition, not enough notable and in-depth sources.Knox490 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There must be a million small-town lawyers at least as notable as this one. DaveApter (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see a lot of IDONTLIKEIT aND OTHERSTUFF in the deletion rationales. Fact is, this is the subject of multiple pieces of independently published coverage dealing with the subject in a substantial way — a GNG pass. We don't need to insert our own feelings about small town lawyers or whether a subject is "important enough" — we are done. Carrite (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Being elected Deputy Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus isn't an automatic notability pass, but GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have more discussion about the weight we can give to the sources in question, which isn't something most of the !votes have touched upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in my opinion the sources are adequate to meet WP:GNG, the WMF budget would easily cover several billion articles, and this person is clearly notable for being the second in command of the world's largest Catholic fraternal organization rather than his work as a small town lawyer. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that one of the criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia is the number of articles it can contain! When did that happen? -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: No idea but there seems to be a general idea that "we should not have an article on everything", see the comment by Knox490 above, which is who I was commenting against. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It seemed like you were basing your viewpoint on the fact that Wikipedia can afford many more articles, which, of course, is not a criterion for inclusion. Still, we should indeed not have an article on everything in Wikipedia. And the reason is not the cost. :-) But if everything would be notable then nothing would be notable! -The Gnome (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking the necessary qualifications on notability for a biography article. The emphasis on the Knights of Columbus raises suspicions about this being yet another promotional piece of text. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep - Nicely done biography about a top Knights of Columbus leader. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)~~ Whoops, sorry, I didn't notice I was in on this one already. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the focus on the leadership of a religious organization is odd. Anything important related to the notable organization should be covered in its article, and this person does not seem notable outside his relationship to the organization. Sandstein 10:45, 17 March 2018 (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.