Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael French

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete --JForget 22:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael French

Michael French (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO on notability. The one reference given mentions this bishop very briefly [1], and I have found no other reliable references mentioning him. Gungadin 17:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A google search yields little (if anything) of value [2]. Regardless of whether this article is kept or not, primary usage of the name should go to the actor. PC78 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find anything other than the link shown that asserts notable notability. (wait, what?) Soxred93 (u t c m l) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I prodded him as non-notable but this was removed, so here we are. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not Catholic, but isn't being a bishop an assertion of notability? Edward321 (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. There are something like 6000 Catholic bishops alive right now. Essentially, you can become a bishop if you find another bishop who is willing to consecrate you. If this is done without the Pope's permission, this will get both of you an automatic excommunication from the Vatican, but the sedevacantists don't recognize the Vatican as legitimate anyway. So what happened is that a certain Archbishop Thuc ordained a bunch of people illicitly, who have gone on to consecrate more bishops themselves. These bishops are not in communion with Rome, and from all I've been able to gather for the most part have very small flocks and have received little media coverage. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete: Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. I'm comfortable with the notion of a bishop being an assertion of notability, but that doesn't make the fellow actually notable. These fringe "bishops" seldom have flocks more numerous than does your average parish priest.  RGTraynor  13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete On the one hand, we have consistently held that bishops of a major church with a territorial organisation are notable because of their important role in the life of a large area. But this is not a major church--this is a small splinter movement, as explained by TallNapoleon. In such a body, only the very most important figures would be appropriate for articles, plus of course any of have special notability through publications or otherwise. Some other bishops of this religious movement have bee nominated for Prod, so I suppose this can be considered a test case. DGG (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Lack of non-trivial independent sources. Trads, "continuing anglicans" and other dissenters from change in mainstream churches are not generally anywhere near as notable as their mainstream counterparts. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 30 April 2008 (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.