Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Kiernan

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 Delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Kiernan[edit]

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

Not notable priest. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most significant position he held was vicar general of the Archdiocese of Atlanta. If he had been named an auxiliary bishop (which that post gets on occasion), he would most probably meet our inclusion criteria. He was never consecrated a bishop, however, so we need to assess the other sourcing more in depth. The other awards are your typical local stuff. Receiving the honourary title of monsignor is no big deal (some dioceses hand it out like candy once you reach a certain age). Sourcing is run of the mill that most priests of retirement age get: they're beloved local figures so they get ordination jubilee coverage, etc. All of that adds up to him being a beloved local priest, which do not meet our inclusion requirements of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 20:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there are no other comments, would an admin consider closing this as soft delete? This is a local guy in Atlanta who doesn't have broader societal impact and is unlikely to be historically significant within that archdiocese. We typically don't keep Catholic clerics who are not bishops unless it has been shown that they receive more coverage than would be typically expected for a run-of-the-mill priest, which hasn't been demonstrated here. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough significant coverage to justify deletion. DrStrauss talk 08:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TonyBallioni - someone known in a local area only doesn't merit their own wiki page. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tony. I can find many others sharing the same name as the Subject, but GNG is not enough for this clergyman. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:34, 2 August 2017 (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.