Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John Keatinge[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, he is listed in some registers but that's about it. No good reliable sources could be found online. Fram (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AS the author of the article I am obviously biased but users other than myself have removed the template, acknowledging that this, and many similar, articles are of great importance to the history of the UK and Ireland, and indeed the relationship between them.Bashereyre (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who make's the decision? I feel that both User:Fram and myself have a vested interest, and should therefore not make the final decision. Can we have a final decision about Anglican archdeacons to avoid future time-wasting? Could not a blanket ruling be administered? The articles are, after all, largely going to be stubs.Bashereyre (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The decision will be made by an uninvolved editor (usually an admin) based on the discussion here (not simply a votecount, the closer looks at which opinions are policy-based and which aren't). Overstating your case (like claiming that this article is of great importance to the history of the UK and Ireland) won't help you in getting this saved though. Considering that the position of Archdeacon of Ardfert is so important that no one bothered to create an article for it until 26 March 2017, I don't think automatically assuming that anyone holding the position is notable is correct. Fram (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - These matters are decided case-by-case here. I do think the comment about Ardfert is tasteless. Irish history here is neglected, because there are not enough Irish editors. Irish Protestant history more so. Ardfert being an agricultural village in county Kerry, we are a long way from Dublin, and in fact in the heart of one of the historically deprived parts of Ireland. The opinions of Church of Ireland leaders in the decades before the Great Famine clearly do matter, now as then. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am a bit of a lone wolf on Anglican Archdeacons in Ireland. I have a job and family. If I live long enough, they will all be done. Surely Wikipedia should not be the sole preserve of people who seem to do nothing else. Workaholics never see the full pictureBashereyre (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed in Boase, Modern English Biography, a standard reference work; I found this quickly on Google Books. By the way, reference to the Library of Congress entry on VIAF gives two titles of works, and those reveal he is also known as M. J. Keating and M. I. Keating as an author. As such, he was an opponent of Irish poor laws, and suggested reform of the grand jury system. So the article can easily be improved. Rector of Ventry at that period. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a link here and/or at the article? Fram (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, yes. But you can find it yourself, I guess, by searching for "Keatinge, Michael John". Per WP:BEFORE, you presumably searched Google Books, but did not use that search term. Or, since Google Books is not the same in each country, perhaps it isn't there for you. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - So no-one else needs to bother: Frederic Boase (1912). Modern English Biography: (Supplement v.1-3). Netherton and Worth. p. 2187. Note that the Find Sources | Books link in the template at the head of this AfD page, searching for "Michael John Keatinge", doesn't yield this result: Noyster (talk), 13:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For Fram to refer to Keating in such disparaging terms as just an Archdeacon is to deliberately demean him. He was Dean of Kilfenora for some 20 years. Plucas58 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether the content from stub articles on (e.g.) archdeacons who might not be individually notable should be grouped together as a biographical list article (at Archdeacon of X)? I think it'd be a stretch to claim that every single individual archdeacon ever has been necessarily notable, but perhaps they are as a group? DBD 13:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This may well be a way forward, but I would argue that whenever a stub I have created is threatened with deletion more scholarly contributors than myself seem to find plenty of material. I sincerely hope Wikipedia will be here for many centuries, and that every so often someone as eclectic as myself will want to add more. I would never dream of putting an article like this up for deletion Hannah Banana but I think Michael John Keating(e) is as worthy of a place as what I would personally say is a single episode of a program that does deserve an articleBashereyre (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Dan I think the time may be coming for an Anglican Wiki. The only problem will be that articles would be edited factionally, but at least every single priest could have one!Bashereyre (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In previous centuries such clerical positions were far more important and influential in society than they are today. This is not a paper encyclopaedia no other information is lost due to the inclusion of this article. With additions made by Charles Matthews I think the notability of this person is clear. One of the interesting things about early 20th century publications such as the EB1911 and the Dictionary of National Biography is how many entries there are for clerics of all denominations. This I think reflects the prominence that clerics had in previous centuries, and why articles such as this one is notable. -- PBS (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Charles Matthews. Deans are usually, but not necessarily, notable. But this one passes WP:GNG, as demonstrated above. St Anselm (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - simply passes GNG now. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In England Deans (of Cathedrals) are generally regarded as notable; less sure about archdeacons; and also less sure about Church of Ireland. However his statements about Irish land tenure are likely to be significant. All in all enough to be WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources and position in the Anglican Church support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - before Roman Catholics got the vote in 1829 and disestablishment in the Victorian era, the Church of Ireland was the official church, so that an Archdeacon c. 1827 was a pretty important person, already on the margin of notability. That this man was frequently quoted and is listed support a claim of notability. FWIW, I have grandparents who were CI and RC, two of whom even married. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 2 April 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.