Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Thomas Larkin

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. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Thomas Larkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is supported by one blog entry, which is also just a list of events in his life with no explanatory text. This is light years away from meeting any prong of GNG, it is not substantial coverage, it is not reliable, it is questionable that a blog that exists to track all bishops of the Catholic Church could be indepdent in a meaningful way, not one part of GNG is met. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A perusal of the sources shows a directory of the ordination of bishops in the US, which dirtectory listing is clearly not enough to pass GNG. It also shows one source that is probably about this Larkin, but is actually about his predecessor in one of his positions of a parish rector who demanded that he be appointed as the next rector, but that coverage does not meet the indepth requirement of GNG. All the other mentions are false positives about other people. I see no indication of Larkin passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not voting now and may not vote on this one, but I want to point out that some and maybe a substantial amount of the article is lifted from a website (try copy-paste Googling). Does it therefore qualify for speedy deletion? I'm not too familiar with speedy criteria. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and gave the article a copy edit to address the copy-pasting concern expressed by DiamondRemley39. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep per WP:GNG and per guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide. One of the most important figures in the Catholic church in Florida in the last half of the 20th century and a close associate of Pope John Paul II. Larkin oversaw the creation of 19 new parishes and a diocesan radio station. He is also the namesake of the Bishop Larkin School in Port Richey (see here and here). An in-depth front page biographical profile was published by the Tampa Bay Times and can be found (1) here (part 1) and here (part 2). Additional SIGCOV can be found (2) here (part 1/part 2), (3) here part 1/part 2, (4) here, (5) here, (6) here, (7)here, (8) here, (9) here, and (10) here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Johnpacklambert: In light of the sourcing above, please consider withdrawing this nom. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I will not withdraw this nomination based on a bunch of obscure hyper local sources. Especially considering that absolutely zero sources have been added to the article. The article is still only sourced to a blog style list source that is not reliable, and nothing changes that until someone actually adds sources to the article, and I remain unconvinced that coverage in a local paper is enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have here SIGCOV in The Tampa Tribune, the Tampa Bay Times, The Orlando Sentinel, and the Sun-Sentinel. These are major metropolitan dailies; there is nothing "obscure" or "hyper local" about such sourcing. And such sourcing has now been added to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. gnu57 04:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. gnu57 04:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BISHOPS. StAnselm (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which actually says that bishops are not notable by default and that more than just church records are needed, which is absolutely all we had when I started this nomination. Did you even read what you linked to, because it does not actually support that bishops are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG is met by the sources listed above. The demand that newspaper coverage be national to count towards notability is not part of the GNG, but the nominator (or any editor) is welcome to start an RFC to suggest such a policy update. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Being a diocesan bishop in the Catholic church is enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per all above comments, especially Cbl62 for doing a basic google search - which per WP:BEFORE is the responsibility of the nominator. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a reasonable before search and came up with absolutely nothing. The above is an unfair and unjustified attack on my actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were advised a couple of days ago that not withdrawing this was going to make you look bad. It's now in SNOW territory: even if you did a BEFORE search, it failed to find extensive newspaper coverage which every participant but you appears to have found compelling. What, exactly, is the point of leaving this open and un-withdrawn? I simply do not get it. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm conscious that local coverage can still be considered local coverage, even when a subject's local newspaper happens to be a national daily. In fact, policies include specific examples of exactly that. However, in this instance, the combination of coverage and SNG criteria is enough to get us there, I think. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - given the nominator has now been blocked for sock-puppetry and disruption, and is the only person here advocating for deletion, this can probably be closed per WP:SNOW. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:17, 27 August 2021 (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.