Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Stevens (2nd nomination)

: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. Withdrawn -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 11:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

=[[Douglas Stevens]]=

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Stevens}}

:{{la|Douglas Stevens}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Stevens (2nd nomination)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Douglas Stevens}})

Simply being a bishop doesn't seem to be a significant enough claim of notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Actually, being an Anglican bishop is considered notable per se. This needs to be sourced better, but that's another issue. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::For my own information, is this fact included in one of the notability guidelines? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:::No, but at every recent attempt (since at least Feb. 2007), to PROD or delete the biography of a bishop of a major church, has ended up in a "keep." How this was deleted back in 2006 only the Lord knows. The Anglican church is the 2nd largest church in Australia. Literally millions of Anglicans around the world (and Episcopalians in the United States) pray at least once a year for the health of Bishop Stevens. Have you Googled his name? I added a few citations, but if I listed every citation it would run into the thousands. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC) PS I found [http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&q=%22Douglas+Stevens%22+-wikipedia+%2B+%22cycle+of+prayer%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= 22 such sources here]. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:Even if not all bishops are notable, he has been shown thusly. I have added several citations and more information as to why he is notable, and have improved the article sufficiently for it to be kept. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Bearian's reasoning (Bishops and higher or equivalent in non-Christian organized religions are indeed per se notable) and his [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Stevens&action=historysubmit&diff=372493448&oldid=372482706 improvements] to date. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep. It's not in any notability guidelines, but it looks like a lot of people use "bishop and above" as a rule of thumb for clerical notability. In other words, it falls under WP:OUTCOMES. Anyway, all the normal bishop-type things are now in the article. St Anselm (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Any bishop in any church with a valid claim for apostolic succession is prima facie notable assuming the individual's existence and ordination can be verified.Minnowtaur (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2010 (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.