Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Kevin Vann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was redirect. I deleted it first to expunge the copyvio. Chick Bowen 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop Kevin Vann

  • Over to you guys. Originally tagged as speedy-delete (criterion A7). — Timwi 17:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the official website:[1]. Catholic Bishops certainly can qualify for articles, but I reserve comment on whether all bishops deserve their own article. --M@rēino 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth, which has more information about him than this article, which is basically a stub and a prayer. The prayer (presumably from his investiture) is hardly encyclopedic and has no value from what I can see. Generally, I've only seen individual articles on cardinals and notable archbishops, or bishops who have been involved in major news stories. Fan1967 17:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This article was tagged for deletion while it was in the process of be built.
    • He is the servant for the people of this diocese, therefore I belive that yes he does deserve his own article (as does anyone in a substancial authoritave role).
    • More information will be posted as I recieve it.
    • Diocese Page should list the bishops but leave the details to individual articles
    • Nexxuz 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Fan1967. --TM 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, or redirect to list or diocese if not expanded. Bishops in major churches are notable enough in my view, more notable than the average professional baseball player. u p p l a n d 20:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Contains personal info For some reason, this article contains a mailing address. I suggest that the article be deleted (there's not really much else to it to salvage), but see no reason against re-creation of a real article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you remove the prayer (copyvio) and the address (against policy) there's nothing left but a stub with less information than we already had at the Diocese article. Fan1967 21:52, 1 May 2006 (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.