Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim McClure

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. ✗plicit 23:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McClure[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable person, doesn't meet WP:GNG. I don't think there are guidelines for clergy, but I can't make WP:SCHOLAR fit -- no publications, no national or notable appointments, no significant contributions to the art. Mikeblas (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He was the Archdeacon of Bristol, I'm pretty sure that is notable enough for an article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does that position convey notability? Are references available for it, anyway? The reference in this article is to Facebook, and I don't have an account. The reference in Archdeacon of Bristol is to an archived copy of a local newspaper's website, which incidentally mentions him during coverage of a jubilee celebration in the town. Searching the Disocese website for "McClure" gets no hits at all. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Lately we seem to have had doubts as to whether archdeacons are notable per se. This is the only basis on which I can see that he would be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep Since he has an entry in UK Who's Who Piecesofuk (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what I tried. Am I looking in the wrong place? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes sorry I should have posted a link, don't know why that search doesn't work, the link is https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U25394 Piecesofuk (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piecesofuk. St Anselm (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though it would be nice to see the article improved. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:16, 18 February 2022 (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.