Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odo Mecdanim

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Odo Mecdanim}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Odo_Mecdanim Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Odo Mecdanim}})

No evidence of notability. Members of the clergy are not inherently notable, and there no substantive sources about this person. Reywas92^Talk 01:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Merge: Merge with Dean of Armagh as per the short text in WP:MERGEREASON.--PATH SLOPU 13:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect as above as does not seem to be independently notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment -- There is a problem with that outcome , because the list article says Maurice Dovey was appointed Dean in 1372. Is this article WP:OR? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• One user has created thousands of article for anyone in history who has been a dean (or other positions) in the clergy, virtually none of which are remotely notable. Honestly I don't think the position itself is even notable and could be redirected to St Patrick's Cathedral, Armagh (Church of Ireland). I now see the sources on the two articles are inconsistent with each other – perhaps [https://books.google.com/books?id=Y-cpW80vLPcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=Maurice%20Dovey&f=false Maurice Dovey (or O'Dove)] is the modern spelling for Odo Mecdanim? Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep--this sort of historical information will make Wikipedia more credible, not less; remove it and the stuff on non-notable bands that actually does make Wikipedia look bad will still be there no matter how much you delete it. Moreover this article integrates well with the template. You start to remove them and the template gets devalued.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS much?? Just because a navbox, created by the same user that created all of the articles linked on it, contains this doesn't mean it must automatically exist. Unclear why credibility is enhanced by an article sourced solely to a church directory rather than substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 23:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.