- 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. Spinning Spark 14:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thomas Birch (priest)
- Thomas Birch (priest) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local historical church official with no assertion of notability. Listing in a WP:DIRECTORY of clergy does not pass the GNG. Reywas92 Talk 06:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Was archdeacon from X to Y, no DOB/DOD, nothing else except that a person of such name held this position at a given time. Fails GNG, and fails Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy (I don't see archdeacons listed there). It is sufficient for his name to be listed at Archdeacon of Hastings. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I will also comment that the main article Archdeacon of Hastings links to dozens others who have held this post in the past, and Template:Archdeacons in the Church of England has numerous more of these local offices, each linking to the past officeholders, for hundreds altogether. Virtually none of them are notable - numerous are just as short as this article, and others have a few biographical paragraphs that do not provide any additional evidence of notability - these simply are not individuals of note for WP, as Common outcomes suggests. It would be nice to hear suggestions for the best path forward; there are far too many to AfD individually or even tag them all (and bulk AFDs tend to be viewed negatively) Reywas92 Talk 02:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per obituary in The Gentleman's Magazine, which I have added to the article. St Anselm ( talk) 00:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah yes, he was educated and later died. That part of the magazine is a gazette of Promotions, Preferments, Births, Marriages, and Obituaries, including a whole section on clergy who died. Where's the part that describes his notability, as "significant coverage" per the GNG? That distinguishes him from anyone else who held a minor, local church position? It's not even necessarily "independent of the subject" as an obituary may be submitted by the surviving family.
Reywas92
Talk 06:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, "ordinary" clergy merely got listed (and I do not know if this was all clergy, or only those who met a certain standard of rank, although being a Vicar was a position of considerable importance in British society in that era) in the Gentleman's Magazine; but notable clergy got the detailed obit this one did. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah yes, he was educated and later died. That part of the magazine is a gazette of Promotions, Preferments, Births, Marriages, and Obituaries, including a whole section on clergy who died. Where's the part that describes his notability, as "significant coverage" per the GNG? That distinguishes him from anyone else who held a minor, local church position? It's not even necessarily "independent of the subject" as an obituary may be submitted by the surviving family.
Reywas92
Talk 06:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -- The list article indicates that we have articles on all his predecessors and successors. We either need to keep them all, or undertake a wholesale purge of those who are not known for much else. We are dealing here with the established church. After the diocesan bishop and any suffrigans, the archdeacons are the most important diocesan officials. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I am updating the page, but am !voting before I finish as it is almost time to close. I'll update this comment with more reasoning tomorrow, but for now I'll vaguely say that he gets a lot of passing mention in newspapers, magazines and gazettes as his position was somewhat honored, he has a plaque in his honor at Battle Abbey which is discussed in books about that, and his career is discussed in enough detail in various sources that we know when he was born, when he graduated from school, when he was given various appointments, when his children married, and when he died.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 01:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- To update my !vote, looking at the obituary, it was certainly not submitted by his surviving family, as its elements are repeated in many sources from his lifetime and would have been known well enough at the time of his death. The obituary looks fairly standard for someone of this life station, which as Bearian notes, was very important in its time. The other sources present what might be called routine notices - and some are duplicated in other, similar notices, of course, those currently in the article seem to cover what I found. Particularly, a number of discussions of his son, a naval officer, mention him in passing. Other than the routine mentions from his lifetime, he is also briefly mentioned in a paragraph in book about Lord Byron, and markers in his honor in Bexhill and Battle churches are discussed in books about the history Sussex (currently reference 2) and Battle (currently reference 9). The article clearly passes V, NPOV, and NOR. As for GNG, it depends on things like whether or not one thinks that routine coverage of posting he held is significant, that discussion of his memorial tables are in depth coverage about the subject, that his obituary is independent, and so on; or that his posting as archdeacon passes NBIO (via ANYBIO #1, for instance). I should note that while the Archdeacon of Lewes is the senior religious figure for half of the Diocene of Chichester (which is led by a bishop), the religion wikiproject norability guide (an essay) states that "brief descriptions in genealogical records or church histories of specific individuals are not considered specific indicators of notability." On the other hand, if we think of one of the purposes of wikipedia as being a gazette of important people, places, and things, Archdeacons of Lewes probably would be included. As with a lot of articles, keep and delete both seem justifiable. To me, this individual seems significant enough for inclusion based on the current sourcing and I expect even more in depth references could be found in sources published in Sussex that are currently hard to find online. Smmurphy( Talk) 22:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - the post of Archdeacon was, at the time, quite important. Bearian ( talk) 01:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 04:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Are, or were when living, a member of the Catholic Episcopate (such as the Pope, patriarch, cardinal, Archbishops, diocesan bishop, or other Catholic church equivalent)
- Does not apply, this is an Anglican figure, not Catholic, and that is a project guide, not a set rule. Notability must still be established besides knowing basic dates of life events.
Reywas92
Talk 05:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry. Changing my vote to Delete.-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 13:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Reywas92: I changed my vote because the subject was Anglican, and there is no way he passes GNG or WP:NBIO. However, I still disagree with you on the validity of WikiProject advice, as long as they are formed by CONSENSUS.-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 20:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Does not apply, this is an Anglican figure, not Catholic, and that is a project guide, not a set rule. Notability must still be established besides knowing basic dates of life events.
Reywas92
Talk 05:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- keep Facts in article are reliably supported, his progression from Vicar, to Dean, to Archdeacon was the hallmark of a notable career in his era, and his notability is established by passing the obit standard. An Obit in the Gentleman's Magazine in 19th century Britain was the equivalent of an obit in the NYTimes in 21st century America. Kudos to User:StAnselm, User:MilborneOne and User:Smmurphy for the WP:HEYMANN upgrade. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note that an Anglican Archdeacon#Anglican_Communion is the sort of ranking churchman that, judging fromm the bluelinks at Archdeacon of Lewes seems to qualify under WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ E.M.Gregory: Virtually every one of those historical archdeacon articles (Lewes and other localities) was created by a single user, so no, there should not be any assumption that there is consensus for general notability. While others have found additional sources for Birch, many of the other articles are also just as worthlessly sourced to a single offline directory listing centuries of these local church leaders. Reywas92 Talk 18:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Held a notable position in the Anglican church, which I think is sufficient for establishing him for notable. I agree with E.M.Gregory's and StAnselm's points also. SJK ( talk) 00:31, 13 May 2017 (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.
- 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. Spinning Spark 14:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thomas Birch (priest)
- Thomas Birch (priest) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local historical church official with no assertion of notability. Listing in a WP:DIRECTORY of clergy does not pass the GNG. Reywas92 Talk 06:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Was archdeacon from X to Y, no DOB/DOD, nothing else except that a person of such name held this position at a given time. Fails GNG, and fails Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy (I don't see archdeacons listed there). It is sufficient for his name to be listed at Archdeacon of Hastings. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I will also comment that the main article Archdeacon of Hastings links to dozens others who have held this post in the past, and Template:Archdeacons in the Church of England has numerous more of these local offices, each linking to the past officeholders, for hundreds altogether. Virtually none of them are notable - numerous are just as short as this article, and others have a few biographical paragraphs that do not provide any additional evidence of notability - these simply are not individuals of note for WP, as Common outcomes suggests. It would be nice to hear suggestions for the best path forward; there are far too many to AfD individually or even tag them all (and bulk AFDs tend to be viewed negatively) Reywas92 Talk 02:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per obituary in The Gentleman's Magazine, which I have added to the article. St Anselm ( talk) 00:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah yes, he was educated and later died. That part of the magazine is a gazette of Promotions, Preferments, Births, Marriages, and Obituaries, including a whole section on clergy who died. Where's the part that describes his notability, as "significant coverage" per the GNG? That distinguishes him from anyone else who held a minor, local church position? It's not even necessarily "independent of the subject" as an obituary may be submitted by the surviving family.
Reywas92
Talk 06:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, "ordinary" clergy merely got listed (and I do not know if this was all clergy, or only those who met a certain standard of rank, although being a Vicar was a position of considerable importance in British society in that era) in the Gentleman's Magazine; but notable clergy got the detailed obit this one did. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah yes, he was educated and later died. That part of the magazine is a gazette of Promotions, Preferments, Births, Marriages, and Obituaries, including a whole section on clergy who died. Where's the part that describes his notability, as "significant coverage" per the GNG? That distinguishes him from anyone else who held a minor, local church position? It's not even necessarily "independent of the subject" as an obituary may be submitted by the surviving family.
Reywas92
Talk 06:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -- The list article indicates that we have articles on all his predecessors and successors. We either need to keep them all, or undertake a wholesale purge of those who are not known for much else. We are dealing here with the established church. After the diocesan bishop and any suffrigans, the archdeacons are the most important diocesan officials. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I am updating the page, but am !voting before I finish as it is almost time to close. I'll update this comment with more reasoning tomorrow, but for now I'll vaguely say that he gets a lot of passing mention in newspapers, magazines and gazettes as his position was somewhat honored, he has a plaque in his honor at Battle Abbey which is discussed in books about that, and his career is discussed in enough detail in various sources that we know when he was born, when he graduated from school, when he was given various appointments, when his children married, and when he died.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 01:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- To update my !vote, looking at the obituary, it was certainly not submitted by his surviving family, as its elements are repeated in many sources from his lifetime and would have been known well enough at the time of his death. The obituary looks fairly standard for someone of this life station, which as Bearian notes, was very important in its time. The other sources present what might be called routine notices - and some are duplicated in other, similar notices, of course, those currently in the article seem to cover what I found. Particularly, a number of discussions of his son, a naval officer, mention him in passing. Other than the routine mentions from his lifetime, he is also briefly mentioned in a paragraph in book about Lord Byron, and markers in his honor in Bexhill and Battle churches are discussed in books about the history Sussex (currently reference 2) and Battle (currently reference 9). The article clearly passes V, NPOV, and NOR. As for GNG, it depends on things like whether or not one thinks that routine coverage of posting he held is significant, that discussion of his memorial tables are in depth coverage about the subject, that his obituary is independent, and so on; or that his posting as archdeacon passes NBIO (via ANYBIO #1, for instance). I should note that while the Archdeacon of Lewes is the senior religious figure for half of the Diocene of Chichester (which is led by a bishop), the religion wikiproject norability guide (an essay) states that "brief descriptions in genealogical records or church histories of specific individuals are not considered specific indicators of notability." On the other hand, if we think of one of the purposes of wikipedia as being a gazette of important people, places, and things, Archdeacons of Lewes probably would be included. As with a lot of articles, keep and delete both seem justifiable. To me, this individual seems significant enough for inclusion based on the current sourcing and I expect even more in depth references could be found in sources published in Sussex that are currently hard to find online. Smmurphy( Talk) 22:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - the post of Archdeacon was, at the time, quite important. Bearian ( talk) 01:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 04:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Are, or were when living, a member of the Catholic Episcopate (such as the Pope, patriarch, cardinal, Archbishops, diocesan bishop, or other Catholic church equivalent)
- Does not apply, this is an Anglican figure, not Catholic, and that is a project guide, not a set rule. Notability must still be established besides knowing basic dates of life events.
Reywas92
Talk 05:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry. Changing my vote to Delete.-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 13:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Reywas92: I changed my vote because the subject was Anglican, and there is no way he passes GNG or WP:NBIO. However, I still disagree with you on the validity of WikiProject advice, as long as they are formed by CONSENSUS.-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 20:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Does not apply, this is an Anglican figure, not Catholic, and that is a project guide, not a set rule. Notability must still be established besides knowing basic dates of life events.
Reywas92
Talk 05:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- keep Facts in article are reliably supported, his progression from Vicar, to Dean, to Archdeacon was the hallmark of a notable career in his era, and his notability is established by passing the obit standard. An Obit in the Gentleman's Magazine in 19th century Britain was the equivalent of an obit in the NYTimes in 21st century America. Kudos to User:StAnselm, User:MilborneOne and User:Smmurphy for the WP:HEYMANN upgrade. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note that an Anglican Archdeacon#Anglican_Communion is the sort of ranking churchman that, judging fromm the bluelinks at Archdeacon of Lewes seems to qualify under WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ E.M.Gregory: Virtually every one of those historical archdeacon articles (Lewes and other localities) was created by a single user, so no, there should not be any assumption that there is consensus for general notability. While others have found additional sources for Birch, many of the other articles are also just as worthlessly sourced to a single offline directory listing centuries of these local church leaders. Reywas92 Talk 18:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Held a notable position in the Anglican church, which I think is sufficient for establishing him for notable. I agree with E.M.Gregory's and StAnselm's points also. SJK ( talk) 00:31, 13 May 2017 (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.