Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felipe de Jesús Estévez

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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felipe de Jesús Estévez

Felipe de Jesús Estévez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Being a bishop is not inherently notable. If he had done something notable on his own, then I could see keeping this. Corvus cornix 23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep: Surely bishops (of major denominations) are more notable than most university professors, if only because there are far fewer of them? And profs seem to be getting kept or no consensus; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizuko Ito Moyabrit 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No, profs are not getting kept unless they meet WP:PROF, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument, anyway. And where do you draw the line? Monsignors? Parish priests? There are fewer of those, too. Corvus cornix 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Bishops usally "rule" over 20 or more parishs, so obviosly a Bishop cannot be compared to a parish priest and the term Monsignor does not confir any juristiction over any other priest or pasish.Callelinea 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep.. I wrote the article and believe that Bishops are notable since the area they "rule" are larger and more populous then some states. Additionally, he is presently the Auxiliary Bishop of Miami. Additionally, plenty of articles on him.Callelinea 03:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not www.catholic-hierarchy.org. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Nor is it the Pokemon Directory, nor the Star Wars Planet Guide, all of which seem to have articles for their particular entries. Your vote in no way addresses notability for this individual, or the contents of this particular article. Alansohn 19:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Stifle, could we keep the discussion on this topic. The consensus is that both that Roman Catholic Bishops are inherently notable and that this particular bishop is notable based on the abundance of references on him. Callelinea 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The vote made here still fails to address notability of this individual and this article in any fashion, let alone address the multiple reliable and verifiable sources that have been provided to establish notability. The most disturbing aspect is that this is an admin who believes that "not www.catholic-hierarchy.org" is a valid excuse for deletion. How do you delete an admin? Alansohn 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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. As an analogy, we do keep university presidents, but only the highest rank of professors. And similarly in other professions, such as sports. DGG (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Comment any such discussion about a presumption of notability for bishops belongs at WT:BIO, not at AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but I question why the move to start deleting articles about the Roman Catholic bishops when no one objected until now.RFD 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 21:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Being a bishop is inherently notable Nick mallory 23:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Being a Bishop is notable --- at least for churches in communion with the Holy See.×jonathon 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and as I said on another disputed bishop article], "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 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an actively notable person in Wikipedia Catholicism. NancyHeise 01:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - but not as strongly as my keep votes on the other bishops mentioned above. Estévez is an auxiliary bishop, which means he's not the man in charge of the archdiocese. Technically, he's the bishop of Kearney, Nebraska, who's bishop moved to Grand Island, Nebraska, in 1917. Also, while a search of the Google News Archives for bishop Estévez miami gets 168 results, articles that are clearly not referering to Msgr. Estévez show up a lot sooner (as early as page 2), and almost all of the articles about the bishop are from The Miami Herald. Gentgeen 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (but, per Gentgeen, not quite as strongly as for the other bishops). The nominator (and some !voters above) have been unhelpfully sidetracked into looking for an automatic-presumption-of-notability provision for bishops, but that's not a requirement, since the references in this article appear to meet the WP:BIO test of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. I invite the nominator to review WP:BIO and withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIO. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIO - Galloglass 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Above and beyond the fact that Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are inherently notable, the ample reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 19:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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. (I didn't say that as clearly as I would have liked.) Someone self anointed or with a small, obscure congregation, not unless otherwise notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
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 20:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The consensus is that the title held by this person DOES make them (inherently) notable. Burntsauce 18:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: WikiProject Catholicism has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge. A diocesan (non-auxiliary) bishop should be presumed notable by office. Not so sure about auxiliary bishops unless they have been in the news for other reasons. In many cases the bio could be merged into the article on the diocese, and this is probably one of those cases. According to catholic-hierarchy.org, there are about 3000 dioceses, so 3000 diocesan bishops, but there are about 5000 living bishops. So about 2000 of those are auxiliaries or Vatican officials. Gimmetrow 03:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
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 03:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I clarified the stats quoted above, which alleged there were 2946 bishops. That's diocesan bishops, not other bishops. I am also stating that I do not find auxiliary bishops per se notable enough for their own articles, though they should be mentioned in the article on the diocese. Gimmetrow 04:17, 30 October 2007 (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.