Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alistair Macdonald-Radcliff

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. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Macdonald-Radcliff

[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)

The subject has held several impressive positions, but none of that seems to have produced independent coverage in secondary sources. PROD'ed by Mccapra, dePROD by Tillander, asserting that Anglican deans are generally notable. WP:CLERGY (which is an outcomes supplement, not a guideline) suggests that bishops, a higher rank of clergy, are where the usual notability cutoff lies. Based on that and the lack of sufficient coverage, I'm bringing this article here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find out about how deans have been treated elsewhere on Wikipedia. In the meantime I'd note that someone at WikiProject Anglicanism (not me) has already rated the article as of "Mid-importance". Tillander 19:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a lot of pages for deans, but I will look into this further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Church_of_England_deans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Church_of_England_dean_stubs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deans_in_the_Church_of_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anglican_deans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anglican_deans_in_Africa It might be useful to seek the advice of someone associated with WikiProject Anglicanism, of which I have only a limited knowledge. Tillander 19:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. Some deans may be notable for particular reasons so there are surely articles about them, but the mere fact of being a dean does not make someone notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hundreds of Anglican deans have Wikipedia articles, and a sampling of them will quickly show that most of them have them simply by virtue of being or having been deans. Here's a fairly random example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Eyre_(priest) Tillander 20:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have enough independent coverage from what is set out in the article, and has been involved in other organisations above and beyond his role as a Dean. Deus et lex (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a British government advisor, not just a dean.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on my research this man seems to more than satisfactorily meet notability according to Wikipedia standards.--SenseiSinatra (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a highly-placed cleric and advisor. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep votes don't seem based on sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Keep votes don't bring up any actual sourcing, and from a BEFORE search I was not able to find any. The sources currently in the article are all primary sources, with the possible exception of the paywalled financial times article, which likely does not provide SIGCOV anyways, and as a result he fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, and he also fails WP:CLERGY. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is ludicrous that someone with a prominent work both in and outside of the church should be considered for deletion. Deletion is not cleanup, if the article needs fixing then it should be, but that doesn't suggest notability. Spartaz was not right to relist this when there is no consensus for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - note also that for his role in Cairo most sources are not likely to be in English. Deus et lex (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:CLERGY and would likely pass WP:GNG if arabic sources were examined. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two tuppences worth. scope_creep^Talk 12:48, 26 October 2020 (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.