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 08:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Joseph Nevins[edit]

John Joseph Nevins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Being a bishop is not inherently notable. If he has done something on his own to be notable, then I could see keeping this. Corvus cornix 23:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable, unless someone provides a reliable source about something notable that he has accomplished. Just being a bishop doesn't create instant notability. --Bejnar 23:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, I am baised on this because I have written the article. This particular Bishop was the FIRST bishop of his diocese. Additionally, I believe all Bishops are notable. Bishops "rule" over a particular area, some dioceses are bigger and more populated then some states of the United States. Additionally there are lots of references of this bishop.Callelinea 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bejnar. I definitely don't agree that all bishops are notable. See Diarmuid Martin for one who is and has a good article. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A bishop is likely to be a newsworthy subject in the area where he's appointed, so I'd be surprised if sources couldn't be found for a bishop, even if such sources couldn't be immediately located online. In any event, there appear to be sufficient sources for this particular bishop.--Kubigula (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this equally true of a parish priest? Where do we draw the line? And just finding sources doens't mean aything, if they don't show some notability other than the fact that he's a bishop. Corvus cornix 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the appointment of a parrish priest is likely to be the subject of coverage beyond a blurb in the local paper. However, if a parrish priest becomes the subject of substantive coverage, then he is probably notable. Finding sources does mean something - if people are writing about the guy then it's objective evidence that he is noteworthy. If they are only writing about him because he is a bishop, then that suggests bishops are generally notable. With respect to this particular guy, there is some coverage related to the Church's sex abuse scandal, which makes him that much more notable.--Kubigula (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have always consistently kept the bishops of those churches organized around geographic lines. there is always coverage in local news sources as important community figures. and in fact this article does havw such sources. I'd support keeping corresponding figures of other denominations, but it's not quite as easy to tell as when there is an established hierarchy. We don't keep parish priests in general because the area of importance is very small. We don't keep articles on neighborhoods unless there is some real notability, and that goes for local churches and their ministers as well. DGG (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is a Roman Catholic bishop and as such is in charge of a number of churches, priests, and parishes in his geographic area. The references include several stories which would appear to provide coverage, although I am not able to examine them. I would not necessarily extend this presumption of notability to a self-proclaimed bishop of a less notable church, or to bishops in a church where the title is given out quite freely. Edison 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great source of references and is where I got many of my references on this bishop.. http://nl.newsbank.com/ Callelinea 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• QUESTION..I was wondering if there is someway to join the three Afd nominations together : John Joseph Nevins , René Henry Gracida , and Felipe de Jesus Estevez together, since the question before us as presented by the nominator is not really if these bishops are notable but are Roman Catholic Bishops notable just for being bishops.Callelinea 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-RFD 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a Roman Catholic bishop is in charge of the churches, priests, and parishes in his diocese. If the diocese rates an article, so should the Bishop.--Mike Searson 21:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being a bishop is inherently notable Nick mallory 23:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepBishops are, by definition, notable. jonathon 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per DGG and Edison. Accurizer 00:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there are currently only 2946 Roman Catholic bishops according to this source. Being a bishop is, furthermore, NOTABLE, and if the bishop is of a major diocese, is an extremely public figure, akin to a mayor or even a senator. Alekjds ^talk 01:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bishops are notable in Wikipedia Catholicism. NancyHeise 01:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a search in the Google News Archives finds 444 news articles with the terms bishop nevins venice. I believe that establishes notability. Gentgeen 02:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The nominator was sidetracked into looking for an automatic notability provision for bishops, but this well-referenced article clearly meets the WP:BIO test of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. I invite nominator to withdraw the nomination, ot fo admin to speedy close this AfD per WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO - Galloglass 13:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church is inherently notable. Furthermore, the ample reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article demonstrate satisfaction of the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Perhaps we need a written guideline on this. Even an auxiliary archbishop for a large arch diocese in an Orthodox church or the Roman Catholic church should be inherently notable. Being named bishop should be considered an achievement at least as significant as playing on a pro sports team or being released on a major record label (to compare apples and oranges). Monsignors and priests , unless they've done something else notable, no. A bishop in a sect with a lower membership, probably not. ) Someone self anointed or with a small, obscure congregation, not unless otherwise notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping the discussion open on these three bishops, even though all three will probably be kept. I also feel that there should be a written guideline on this also. There is no need for Roman Catholic Bishops being brought up over and over again for AfDs, when the end result will be the same. It would save alot of time and effort if a guideline was in place.Callelinea 20:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed a no brainer to me. Then I saw there were three of these and that Stifle had voted delete! So I realised it should run the course. I did not know that Bishop articles were coming up for deletion. It does not make sense to me that they are not notable, as I explain above. If the outcomes are consistent on these, we could mention it at Outcomes. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Okay, I get it now. This is a series of mass nominations pertaining to bishops. Burntsauce 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: WikiProject Catholicism has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A diocesan (non-auxiliary) bishop should be presumed notable by office. However, in many cases the bio could be merged into the article on the diocese. I suspect this is one of those cases. Gimmetrow 03:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? Does it matter how many cities there are in the world? I'm sure there might be close to or more than half a million, but all cities are notable. Auxiliary Bishops are only assigned to dioceses (or archdioceses) that have a large Catholic population or a large area.. Where they do not "rule" the diocese they may be given any duties that the Archbishop may assign them. In many cases they control monies or education programs or even day to day affairs of the archdioces. About 30-75% of auxiliary bishops get "promoted" to "rule" their own diocese. They are notable and if someone is willing to put the effort in writting an article Then they deserve one. And for those of you that say that Archbishops are more important then Bishops they are mistaken.. Archbishops rule a larger area or have a larger populations then bishops.. Both are equal in power. Callelinea 03:48, 30 October 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.