Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fr. John Berchmans Puthuparambil OFM CAP

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. John Berchmans Puthuparambil OFM CAP[edit]

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

Apart from being very holy, I can't determine any valid claims to notability (PROD removed). ninety:one 18:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I would say, based on the article. If the article is correct, he was a good guy and effective in his jobs. But that seems to be it. He held a post called "First Indian Capuchin Provincial". Can't tell exactly what that is, but it seems like just a job - its not like being a bishop or anything close to that, as near as I can tell. And that would seem to be the strongest point for any notability he might have. Still. He's been dead for twenty-five years, and somebody thought it worthwhile to write about him. He may have had more impact than is clear from the article. So I feel a little unsure about this. But as it stands, I would have to say, not notable. Herostratus (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I don't feel strongly about it, being the first Indian Capuchin Provincial in combination with what else is said about him passes the notability test within the context of someone who has chosen the religious life. As for what a Provincial is, see Provincial superior AJHingston (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Well, if a person's main claim to notability is "Held position X", then Position X would usually have be something like Archbishop, General, CEO, etc. for the article to even stand a chance, I would think. A mere Bishop, Colonel, Executive VP etc. would not qualify (unless they were otherwise notable, of course). I'm not getting the sense that the good father was really at this level. I don't want to be pedantic about this. If the article was better - shorter and more to the point - maybe we could see this better. But it's not. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 4 February 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) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a complete lack of reliable secondary sources, making him fail the GNG and WP:BIO. No matter what the importance of his office is, if no one but us cares to write about him, neither should we. Huon (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete office is not notable. MLA (talk) 22:21, 12 February 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.