Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mar Aprem Natniel

: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. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

=[[Mar Aprem Natniel]]=

:{{la|Mar Aprem Natniel}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Mar Aprem Natniel}})

I cannot find RS coverage of this person to support a finding of notability. Others are welcome to try. Perhaps a merge/redirect is in order. Tagged for notability since April of this year. Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep. It seems to be generally agreed (and I concur) that bishops of mainstream churches are inherently notable. The question is whether this is a mainstream church. Given it claims 400,000 members, I would be tempted to come down on the side of keeping. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep -- His church is a significant one, and he is a bishop in it; thus notable. It is a pity it is merely a stub. However, I suspect that Mar is an honorific, in which case the article should be at Aprem Natniel. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

:I wouldn't be against a merge to the church, with a redirect. But are we going to populate the Project with content-less stubs of people who do not have RS coverage -- but only bare mentions in their church's website, where the stubs say only "person is an x of y"?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

::Why not? Stubs are perfectly acceptable and bishops are notable. The fact it's a stub now doesn't mean it always will be. Bishops usually have significant enough careers for expansion into a decent article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

:::As to why not, one reason might be that his church itself does have bios with something to say about other bishops, but nothing to say about him at all other than that he is a bishop. When that is the case with the primary source, I wonder whether we are not serving as a directory. At such time as he had a significant enough career, as you put it, is reason to invoke NOTNOW where there is no RS support of non-RS support even in his church's bio for his notability beyond the mere fact that he is a bishop. If, however, bishop-level clerics are always presumed notable -- even with an absolute absence of RS coverage -- per consensus, then I would be fine with that, but we should then as is suggested below have that inserted into the appropriate notability guideline, with the appropriate explanation as to parameters (eg, all churches?, what titles in other religions?). I'm happy to follow whatever the consensus is, but establishing it and memorializing it would help make the process transparent and application uniform IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Query. Is there any evidence for this claim that community consensus says bishops are notable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep Bishops of Churches which claim bishops to hold apostolic succession and appoint bishops over a large number of Churches are notable. Just look at how many articles we have on Roman Catholic bishops. This might be a restatement of what Necrothesp said, but I hesitate to use the term "mainstream". That is an amorphouse term, and some Protestant groups use bishop for people who would not neccesarily be notable, so I think we need to be hesitant. Anyway, I am sure there is more information out there on Aprem Natniel, we may just have to wait for it to be translated from Assyrian, or maybe for the Church to grow enough in the US that American scholars give attention to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep. It's certainly my opinion that bishops are notable. I think we are approaching a consensus on this, and it would be good if it was formalised. St Anselm (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2011 (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.