Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle
- 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. Redirect at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Joseph Verschoyle[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Joseph Verschoyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bishops of major churches organized on a geographic basis, such as the Church of England (or the Anglican Church of Ireland) are presumed to be notable here. I do not think we have ever extended this to archdeacons, who at least in the modern era are always subsidiary officials over part of a diocese, and there is no other evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)
- delete I am aware that archdeacons vary in function across the church but I don't see how we can justify the notability of someone who appears in routine and exhaustive cataloguing, and nowhere else. The list of ostensibly similar cases I take merely as an invitation for reconsideration. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- For Comparison
- these were kept:
- John Plemth was a late medieval figure, -- and sometimes archdeacons were more important in that period --see our article on archdeacons
- David Booth was Honorary Chaplain to the Queen, which the AfD considered important-- I do not, there are 33 of them at a time. & only 4 have WP articles.
- George Cameron wrote several books, and had an obit in the London Times , which we consider a gold standard for notability
- Keating I consider an unjustified keep, based on the argument that they were important in the 19th century,wfor which there is no evidence. I note he was promoted to Dean, and it was accepted in the afd that Deans are not necessarily notable.
- Thomas Tuttebury was kept on the basis he was Dean of Wells. (if he was, the data is unclear)
- Thomas de Bodham was kept in the absence of argument to delete at the AfD , though there were only listings.
- This was deleted:
- Tim Raphael
- This is currently be discussed at ::Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove
- these were kept:
- The earlier discussion on the basis of which some of them were kept is at [1]. The question is basically at what level we want to cover people, for we can adjust the way we interpret the guideline at NBIO to match what we want. But I think there's an obvious solution as provided for by one of the less noticed portions at WP:N, which is merging into a combination article. Doingthis could avoid a great many discussions here which could reasonably go either way. The problem is that discussions here are in practice the only way to force such merges. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers , headnote, A discussion at the village pump in 2013 overwhelmingly concluded the current proposed mergers system (the process & templates) to be inadequate. A consequent discussion on implementation of an automated system similar to requested moves was archived after 2 months of inactivity. The latter discussion had 6 participants; no conclusion was reached. At present, those manually listed here link to discussions at the article talk pages, which is ineffective except for much-watched articles. The only effective way of doing anything involving an alternative to deletion is here at AfD, because this is where more people pay attention. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete no sourcing that is more than directory level coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps redirect to the appropriate Archdeacon article — in this case, Archdeacon of Achonry. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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.