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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Heistand[edit]

Is this bishop sufficiently notable? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article makes no case for itself. -- roundhouse 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This article is very weak: it has no sources, and tells us absolutely nothing about the career of the subject beyond the bare fact that he was a bishop. However, I do think that the role of a bishop is sufficiently important that they should get some sort of automatic presumption of notability in WP:BIO. BIO's criteria include "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming", and it seems to me to be silly that the same does not apply to bishop. However, as it stands, WP:BIO doesn't try to address religious careers, so I can't sa more than a "weak" keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how many bishops of the different churches there are at present in a given area in the US. I think the answer in the UK is 2 - an Anglican one and a Catholic one - certainly notable. Eg how many bishops in total (approx) preside over Ohio? -- roundhouse 10:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 Anglican Archbishops (Canterbury and York). Many many bishops. Two Catholic Archbishops (Westminster and Liverpool). I think WP:BIO must be amended as BHG says. It would be ludicrous for minor sportsmen, pornographic actors and Pokemon characters to be deemed more notable than some religious leaders. - Kittybrewster 11:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant for a given area - eg where I am there is the (anglican) Bishop of Derby + a Catholic bishop (perhaps the Archbishop of Liverpool). I don't think there are any others. In the States there are or have been Mennonite bishops, Lutheran bishops, several sorts of predecessor UM bishops etc etc - are these all notable? -- roundhouse 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few denominations with episcopal polity in the USA. In my area, we've got an Episcopal bishop, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, an ELCA bishop, bishops of overlapping Russian Orthodox jurisdictions, the Greek Orthodox (arch?)bishop... you get the idea. I hadn't heard of the denomination in question here. In general I think bishops are notable, but in this case I'm not sure if they're individually notable. Neutral for now. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that is what I was trying to establish - a bishop sounds impressive but not if there are dozens of them of differing persuasions. Church of the United Brethren in Christ claims "The total number of United Brethren churches is 600, with a membership of 47,300. In 2000, membership in the United States was 24,603 in 253 congregations". It's not clear how many bishops there are (at least one) but this is not a large church today. Difficult to guess how large it was in the time of Samuel Heistand. -- roundhouse 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and expand - per above. Broadly, why not? - Kittybrewster 11:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is one of a set of methodist bishops which should be treated similarly - Kittybrewster 09:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question isn't what the church is now but what it was then, and where his office then fit into their organization--if he was the head of the denomination he would be N. Its founder were two famous evangelists, who were entitled Bishops by the group, & the denomination is very much a N part of US history. But since they did not actually have a formal organization until 1841, it is not easy to tell. If he was considered the equal of Otterbein and Boehm, he was unquestionably notable, & the article needs expansion. (The question I had whether this was one of the denominations where every congregation has its own Bishop, but according to the article there were 6 bishops at a time when the church had 500,000 members.) Other denominators aren't part of the qy, so we don't have to consider their N qualifications right now. DGG 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What did he do? Nothing except have children. Not notable. --Bejnar 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many people are notable, not by which what they have done but by which what they are or were. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

People like that are for lists not articles. --Bejnar 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protest The problem is probably with the article rather than the bishop. One ought not to have to do any work or delving into Wikipedia to see whether someone is notable. The article doesn't even say that he is on List of Bishops of the United Methodist Church. Assuming this list is the complete list (not actually stated, and indeed no refs are provided for the list) then I can see that in 1833 he was one of a select few bishops (of a predecessor of the UMs). What was his episcopal area for instance? I suppose we should stick some tags on these articles. -- roundhouse 10:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He is on this list - 1833 [1]. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Strong Keep This is one of hundreds of articles on Bishops currently being worked on or planning to be worked on (all within the constraints of time). Bishops are presumed to be notable. I assure you, when this one was alive he was VERY notable to his contemporaries. No one is elected a Bishop without such notability, at least in the United Methodist and related churches. Delete it now, if you like. But I intend to write an article on this Bishop at some point. Thanks. 70.104.101.220 18:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Anons aren't allowed to "vote," are they? Diez2 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes they are, but this is not a vote as such. Since the article is up for deletion, it might be good if 70.104.101.220 were rapidly to expand the article to explain why this chap was particularly notable (which for all I know he may be) rather than creating more articles for relatively obscure (mere?) bishops. I.e. turn him from a weak keep into the strong keep that 70.104 thinks he is. - Kittybrewster 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 70.104.101.220 said "Bishops are presumed to be notable." Where is that written in stone? Bishops might make a list based on their status, but that alone doesn't justify an article. Come back when you have written an article based on reliable sources, not original research and genealogical records. --Bejnar 18:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an incumbent of a higher ecclesiastical office. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Keep and speedy expand. The problem isn't whether or not he is notable—his position in the church indicate he almost certainly is notable to someone. The issue is that the article does not enumerate his notability. The addition of a single paragraph could render this whole discussion moot. —xanderer 21:18, 22 February 2007 (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.