Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Kierkegaard

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 keep. Sango123 17:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Kierkegaard

WP:BIO Related to notable person, but not notable . John Nagle 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the brother of Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, and the article focuses on that. There's little independent notability, although the subject of the article was a bishop. (Is being a bishop notable? That should equate to being a VP of a large corporation, which Wikipedia doesn't usually consider notable.) --John Nagle 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Strong keep - He appears to be slightly notable because of the Kierkegaard connection (not enough on it's own) - but IMHO being a Bishop pushes him over the top. Are bishops notable ? I say Category:American bishops and Category:Anglican bishops is well stocked with less notable Bishops. He also gets a few hits on the Danish wikipedia. Megapixie 01:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - if someone can find something notable that he did, like write something important, and put that in the article, that would be a big help. --John Nagle 02:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If it is true that he is a theologian, that might be enough. In addition, his name is found in 3 sources. As petty as it sounds, I think the fact that he lived 150 or so years enough is enough. AdamBiswanger1 04:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I found two books he wrote at the Library of Congress catalog http://catalog.loc.gov/ and added them to this article. There may be more at the National Library of Denmark. TruthbringerToronto 02:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notability should never be enforced on figures of academic interest, unless the figure is extremely insignificant (e.g. Einstein's great-aunt). Deletion of modern-day non-notable figures makes perfect sense. However, deleting this one would be a step backward in Wikipedia's goal; It makes no sense. Sorry about my tone, but I feel really strong about that one. AdamBiswanger1 04:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• One Weak Keep and another Weak Keep equals a Keep overall. I slapped a fact tag on the speculation, other than that it's short, sweet, informative and sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Coredesat 06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is progress; now we have more notability. In the beginning, it was more like a "brother of notable person" article. --John Nagle 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep That he was a bishop is notable enough for me. snug 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per snug hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 10:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as he was a bishop and notable in his own right, and has a six-page article in the old edition of the Dansk biografisk lexikon here. up+land 10:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above —Mets501 (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per all above. He has his own article on the Swedish Wikipedia. Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per AdamBiswanger1's persuasive argument. Interlingua ^talk 15:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, He appears to meet WP:BIO & as a historical personage I'm willing to be lenient in application of the guidelines.--Isotope23 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Badlydrawnjeff Hshhh, I´m not really here 16:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Sophy's Duckling 04:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep bishops are undoubtedly a good deal more notable than vacuous "slebrities" :-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AdamBiswanger1. But I'd disagree that bishops per se are notable, for a few bucks and a SASE, you too could be bishop. Carlossuarez46 01:13, 21 June 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.