Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Thomas (priest)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Walter Thomas (priest) (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)
There is a presumption of notability to bishops of major territorial churches, but this does not extend to archdeacons, who are subordinate officials, having supervision of part of the diocese. There is no reference to show notability here other than routine biographical notices DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
DeleteComment. I looked through the 106 Google results for "Walter Thomas" "Church of Ireland", and the only result relating to this particular Walter Thomas seems to be the Fasti Ecclesiae Hibernicae, cited in the article. This book simply lists the dates on which Thomas held certain positions, and since these positions aren't inherently notable as the nom points out I don't think it establishes notability all by itself. I couldn't find the reference to him in citation 1 (no page number given and no luck on GBooks), and citation67 is just a transcript of an email which mentions him in a genealogical table. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 17:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Withdrawing my !vote for now since a new source has been added and I haven't thought through setting a precedent for the office of archdeacon as a whole. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: No presumption of notability, but archdeacons are usually kept - see the template at the bottom of the article. StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @StAnselm and DGG: I am guessing that the article was created to fill in a navbox link. All the articles I clicked on in the "Archdeacons of Killaloe" navbox, from John Hall (Archdeacon of Killaloe) and Richard Daniel (priest) through to the last entry Ernest Murray seem to be in a similar state, so—without prior judgement on the notability of those other articles—I think this might imply the need for a wider discussion about how to handle this category of officeholders. If they are generally not covered in any depth in RS then it might be better to collapse them into a list at the Archdeacon of Killaloe (etc.) article, with links to separate articles if and when they're independently notable. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also look at these
- @StAnselm and DGG: I am guessing that the article was created to fill in a navbox link. All the articles I clicked on in the "Archdeacons of Killaloe" navbox, from John Hall (Archdeacon of Killaloe) and Richard Daniel (priest) through to the last entry Ernest Murray seem to be in a similar state, so—without prior judgement on the notability of those other articles—I think this might imply the need for a wider discussion about how to handle this category of officeholders. If they are generally not covered in any depth in RS then it might be better to collapse them into a list at the Archdeacon of Killaloe (etc.) article, with links to separate articles if and when they're independently notable. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)
- Thanks Bashereyre. I haven't read through all of the discussions yet but the general theme seems to be that there are many archdeacons who are independently notable but the office itself doesn't create a presumption of notability. So the problem then is creating such a presumption via things like a navbox full of red links—but I'm not sure how to fix that. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- At most Weak keep, perhaps delete -- In England the Church of England is the dominant church, so that it may be appropriate for most archdeacons to have articles. This is not the case in Ireland, where only the ascendancy were Protestant, the majority of the population being Catholic. On this basis I can make a distinction between England and Ireland. The archdeacon is a member of the cathedral chapter. In his case he served as archdeacon for just a year and then moved on (via precentor) to be cathedral treasurer, both NN roles. In this particular case I am not sure we need the article. However, then archdeacons navbox needs to be amended so that we do not have redlinks for people of whom we will probably never know much. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't make a distinction here: the basis for bishops being notable is their social role, and in the 18th c., as here, the CoE was still Established & had the same official role, as far as the governing classes were concerned. Whatever the rule, it would make more sense and be more in accord with NPOV, to apply it to any church with a substantial representation, rather than try to make this sort of distinction. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi its me again. These Afds never generate much response, largely I suspect because they are so uncontroversial. Maybe a definite ruling on Archdeacons is needed; and also perhaps on Monsenieurs (?) in the RC church Bashereyre (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't make a distinction here: the basis for bishops being notable is their social role, and in the 18th c., as here, the CoE was still Established & had the same official role, as far as the governing classes were concerned. Whatever the rule, it would make more sense and be more in accord with NPOV, to apply it to any church with a substantial representation, rather than try to make this sort of distinction. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Bashereyre: Afaik there is definitely no presumption of notability for a Catholic monsignor, and a quick search of the AfD archives suggests that people have made that point explicitly. At least until recently, tons of people were given the title of monsignor automatically, e.g. the canons at certain diocesan cathedrals, who would not merit an article just because of that. That said, on the issue of archdeacons, lack of response generally indicates that people are unsure, not that it's uncontroversial (which would mean a lot of people responding with one option). This particular article still looks very borderline to me. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 17:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Article is well referenced, enough to demonstrate notability regardless of title.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- There are four sources, one of which fails verification, the other is self-published; the third talks about two people who may or may not be the same individual, and only the fourth is definitely about him, and amounts to a couple of notices. So I'm not sure about that at all. I won't press it though, just replying since this was listed as a response to me. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Article is well referenced, enough to demonstrate notability regardless of title.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Bashereyre: Afaik there is definitely no presumption of notability for a Catholic monsignor, and a quick search of the AfD archives suggests that people have made that point explicitly. At least until recently, tons of people were given the title of monsignor automatically, e.g. the canons at certain diocesan cathedrals, who would not merit an article just because of that. That said, on the issue of archdeacons, lack of response generally indicates that people are unsure, not that it's uncontroversial (which would mean a lot of people responding with one option). This particular article still looks very borderline to me. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 17:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Trying to set an arbitrary bar for people never really works out, again and again. The better way is to see whether this historical person has xyr life and works recorded in depth in the history books, the ordinary multiple independent sources that document the subject in depth from identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy thing. By far the easiest reason that people with high office are often notable is that they are in the history books in detail. They are in things like the Dictionary of Irish Biography, or covered in detail in a parish/diocese/town history.
I have checked and this person is not in the DIB. The Fasti Ecclesiae Hibernicae does not support all of the content that it is being purported to support, either. It's mainly a bare list of dates and offices held, and Bashereyre has not spotted that the information about 1714 is a question, not a statement, so in fact you do not have a source confirming that this person actually was an archdeacon, as the source that you have questions whether this is a matching record. So the whole setting the arbitrary bar at archdeacons idea is wrong for a second reason.
Looking, I cannot find anything beyond mentions in lists, like the sources at hand. This person's life and works appear not to be documented in depth beyond directories of office-holders, anywhere, either cited or that I can find; and Wikipedia is not a directory of people, which is all that that gets us. No historian has actually done the legwork, including for starters conclusively matching up the questioned records to form a definitive narrative.
- @Uncle G: I totally missed the quaerere. If this article is (potentially) mixing up two different people then that's a whole new problem. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Have edited the article now to note that it's not certain per the source —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Uncle G: I totally missed the quaerere. If this article is (potentially) mixing up two different people then that's a whole new problem. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Archdeacons are not presumed notable, although they often could be, based on depth of coverage in sources. FWIW, my paternal grandmother was C. of I. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete sourcing is not good enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Could you please relist the discussion, so that I can continue my searches next monday? Thomas wrote a letter to William Smyth about John Allen. My feeling is that there might be something interesting to find… Genium. 01:21, Aug 2, 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 09:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 09:19, 4 August 2019 (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.