Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Falkiner Goold

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. The "delete" votes have it by a wide margin, but most of them were lodged prior to the introduction of numerous new sources. The article has significantly more citations now than it did when it was first listed at AfD, so I don't think "per nom" carries much weight anymore. I'd encourage James500 and other interested editors to continue improving the article, with the aim of establishing notability more firmly, and I also leave the door open to a new nomination if significant coverage has not been found and cited after some time. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Falkiner Goold

[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)

Bishops of major churches organized on a geographic basis, such as the Church of England (or the Anglican Church of Ireland) are presumed to be notable here. I do not think we have ever extended this to archdeacons, who at least in the modern era are always subsidiary officials over part of a diocese, and there is no other evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another archdeacon who shows up simply as a catalogue entry. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete catalogue entries do not establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many similar churches, we can't create article for each. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. He has amongst other things an article in Boase's Modern English Biography [1] which is a gold standard source for those who died in the late nineteenth century, probably the leading source (I am tempted to invoke criteria 3 of ANYBIO). He would not be in there if he wasn't notable. Add to that an obituary in Freeman's Journal (2 February 1877) and the Illustrated London News [2] ("Archdeacon Goold", towards bottom of last column) and the rest of the coverage available in GBooks etc, and I think he is well within acceptable limits for a person of this era. It goes without saying that just looking only for "Frederick Falkiner Goold" is useless, and one has to search for things like "Archdeacon Goold", "F F Goold", "F Goold", "Goold Frederick" or just "Goold" +archdeacon, or +raphoe, or +1852, +1877, (or any other relevant date or place) or +obituary etc or various combinations etc. Whatever the sources might be, I do not think they could be fairly described as "catalogue entries". James500 (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: James500's sources merit discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Some archdeacons will be notable; many not. In this case, I do not see that he is notable. I note he is not in the Dictionary of Irish Biography or Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The Illustrated London News obit does not do more than say he held office and who his family were. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other sources besides the ones I cited. If, for the sake of argument he is not notable, then he ought to be merged to Archdeacon of Raphoe per ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The level of detail in the obituary is actually normal for a nineteenth century obituary of a notable person. Obituaries at that time, even in The Times, did not necessarily have the same level and type of detail as obituaries today. In any event, it does give more information: it says he was one of the principal landowners in county of Limerick (which is important) and gives details of his birth, death, education etc (relevant). James500 (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Other sources include, in particular, history books such as (Elections, Politics and Society in Ireland) [3] [4], other biographical dictionaries such as Walford [5], Parliamentary Papers [6], Encyclopaedia Britannica [7] (which says he owned 10,966 acres of land and was the the fourth largest landowner), The Builder and The British Architect (details of some of his building projects) [8] [9] [10] [11], poetry lamenting his death [12], and other obituaries such as [13] [14]. This is only a small sample of the vast quantity of coverage Goold received. James500 (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps redirect to the appropriate Archdeacon article if possible — in this case, Archdeacon of Raphoe. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2018 (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.