Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John T. Walker

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John T. Walker

John T. Walker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) --> John T. Walker was Bishop of Washington from 1977 to 1989 in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington Signed Jeepday (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nominator withdraws nomination per comments below begining with Fuhghettaboutit at 19:01 Signed Jeepday (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, What is wrong with some of you guys that nominate a Bishop of a major Religion for AfD? I found plenty of sources for him and added to his article. Callelinea 14:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep It's well established that major religious leaders are notable. Blueboy96 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is it established? Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not mention it. Jeepday (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Being a bishop (or other major religious leader) of a major religion is inherently notable. Davewild 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Davewild.--JForget 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for the policy Wikipedia:Inherently notable does any one know what it is listed as? I see a lot of people referring to it, would like a chance to read this policy for myself. Jeepday (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Not for the reasons stated above. There are either sources verifying and providing information so that an enycyclopedia article can be written, or there aren't. In this case there are, in spades, which I deduce from and need go no further in researching than this. Probably all similarly situated religious leaders are notable as we use that word here, but not inherently; because all of them have been the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources (we cannot write a tertiary source encyclopedia entry from vapor, sources must exist).--Fuhghettaboutit 19:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This biography [1] and the other sources I have added to the article should satisfy any concerns regarding his notability. Davewild 19:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you to user Pan Dan, who pointed out to me --> User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not a blanket, which reflects Fuhghettaboutit comments above, there is no Inherently notable. Thank you to user Davewild who validated the subject really is notable Diff (2 intermediate revisions not shown.). Appoligies for bring this article to AfD, the article did not look notable as it was History. Jeepday (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like this nomination is being withdrawn--could someone close it? Blueboy96 22:43, 7 July 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.