Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Paton Ogilvie

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. J04n(talk page) 20:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Paton Ogilvie[edit]

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

Minor cleric. Only one reference and no indication within the article of the subject's notability. Wikipedia is not a place for people to document their family tree as the article's author seems to be attempting with this and Lawrence Ogilvie, which is also AfD nominated. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Any clergyman could generate the same article. Notability is not shown. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 13:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of the Scottish Synod (the ruling council of the church) with specified duties. Being low-church Presbyterian, there were and are no titles such as bishop that exist in other sects of the church: but the individuals still had national (Scottish) responsibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanogi (talk • contribs)
Delete. No claim of notability. I don't think 'Scottish Synod examiner' necessarily implies he was on the Synod, merely that he was appointed by the Synod to conduct examinations. Qwfp (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the face of it, a run-of-the-mill biography without any particular assertion of notability. If references can be provided to show that he passes WP:BIO, I'll change my mind. Robofish (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had he been a member of the Scottish Synod he would be notable, but there is no evidence of it, & I do not see that the statement that he was an examiner for it gives that implication. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Synods don't appoint people to conduct examinations unless they're members of Synod; however, being a member of Synod doesn't mean anything for notability for two reasons: (1) The highest court of the Church of Scotland is the General Assembly, and (2) Any member of a presbytery is eligible to be elected as a delegate to General Assembly, and new delegates are chosen every year; it's a temporary position that wouldn't attract any coverage, and delegates to General Assembly are not members of an oligarchy — this is not at all comparable to the Holy Synod in various Orthodox churches. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 16 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.