Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter McVerry

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McVerry[edit]

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

Delete as ~~non-notable/~~insufficiently notable individual or, in the alternative, merge with Peter McVerry Trust stub article. Quis separabit? 17:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Quite a notable person especially in relation to his work with the homeless. Definitively meets GNG. Snappy (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That alone does not confer sufficient notability per se. Quis separabit? 23:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does indeed. Check for reliable sources, loads out there. Snappy (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google search by name ~~(see [1]) brought up one link to the official Trust website and to one RTE article referencing Father McVerry himself.~~ registered 18,600 hits, a relatively low number, with many fewer actually deriving from reliable sources. In any event, as I indicated above in the rationale, I believe that a merger of the Wikipedia article on Father McVerry (which I will have to fix up and can expand but won't do anything until this AFD is resolved/closed) and the Wikipedia article about the Trust, which is basically a stub, would be good. Quis separabit? 17:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable person. Numerous sources meet general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: NOMINATION HEREBY WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR ON RETHINK. WILL PURSUE MERGER AS OUTLINED ABOVE Quis separabit? 17:30, 11 June 2014 (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.