Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Zurek

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 per WP:SNOW; clearly notable and article has been expanded greatly. This hasn't been open 24 hours yet (which is why the previous closure was overruled), but I think that here the consensus is so obvious that I can invoke WP:IAR too. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Zurek

Fails WP:BIO. No notability or significant coverage in third party, reliable-sources. Collectonian (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I've added 4 references and a few additions to to the article itself. Cel ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep isn't generally an option unless its a bad faith nom, which this is not. In this case, none of those refs meet the criteria for establishing notability per Bio as two are local papers, and two are just refs showing he was made bishop. They do not show that he meets WP:BIO's requirements. Collectonian (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I always assume good faith, I can't help but notice that you haven't placed a ARS tag or anything similar on the article prior to putting it up for deletion in even an attempt to see whether or not he is notable. To me, that embodies bad faith; not that it's a personal assault on you or anything, I'm just making a point that AfD is not forced cleanup. Cel ^{Talk to me} 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one doesn't feel notability can be established, there is nothing wrong with sending straight to AfD. If I'm not sure, I do tag first, but in this case I did do a search before sending and found nothing showing he is notable by WP:BIO. Collectonian (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Keep — The coverage meets the borderline of significance. As for reliable? Yes, most of the sources are. The fact that the coverage is from local papers does not mean the sources are less reliable than the mass media, or that the subject is not notable. EJF (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may be reliable for content, however per BIO, they do not establish notability: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[ secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Specifically, the coverage in the independent papers are trivial mentions of local news and his being made bishop. Those events do not establish notability either. Collectonian (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I can find on Patrick Zurek, his placement into his current position seems notable.--Pmedema (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. All bishops in the Roman Catholic Church are notable ex officio. Good candidate for WP:SNOW. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to a policy or guideline that supports that. Collectonian (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources may not be extensive but they are sufficient. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAlthough it already seems on its way towards survival, I've Rescue-tagged to bring a wider audience -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: reopened as inappropriate non-admin closure after less than 1 day. Collectonian (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm detecting some snow in this sector. That's exactly what non-admin closures are for... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't. Non-admins should not do speedy anything, and giving the thing at least 24 hours would be the norm. Collectonian (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note. I closed this AFD as speedy keep. The AFD was reopened by Collectonian. I think its bad form to reopen/overturn a closed discussion. Especially if you were the only one who wanted it deleted, and you yourself nominated it. Can someone other than myself close this as speedy keep, per SNOW. Thank you. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is, an ADMIN who is actually qualified to speedy keep anything. Collectonian (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NAC provides for non-admins to close a discussion either as a speedy keep under Wikipedia:Speedy keep (which this closure fails as the nominator has not withdrawn,) or as a Snowball keep aftr at least 24 hours. I agree that this close was premature, but it is incorrect to say that non-admins cannot speedy close -- RoninBK _{T C} 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per WP:SK "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a 'speedy keep' instead." Seems to be some inconsistency here.Collectonian (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll grant you that it's currently inconsistent. WP:NAC is a fairly new process, and it's still in a very evolving stage. Case in point, there is currently a proposal at the Pump to permit NAC to even close uncontroversial Delete outcomes, (using a CSD G6 tag as the method to execute the actual deletion.) -- RoninBK _{T C} 04:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per WP:SNOW per the policy of what Wikipedia is, i.e. a collection of general or specialized encyclopedic or almanacic information. American bishops are covered by the First pillar regarding specialized encyclopedias, per the existence of published encyclopedias on American bishops. This referenced article about the head of a bishopric passes WP:BIO. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.