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. I may be looking in the wrong places, but a Google search for "Michael Manning priest" found nothing that establishes notability. May I also remind Elan26 that just because a famous publisher publishes something doesn't mean that the subject matter is automatically famous (see WP:INHERITED). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Manning (priest)[edit]

While this person has written a number of books and appeared as a guest on a number of talk shows, the article fails to reference wide citation of this person in their field. Creator may have a conflict of interest. Zero references cited in the article.Rtphokie (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Manning is a non-notable Roman Catholic priest. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look, it's a really, really badly-written article. No footnotes. Terrible. However, the guy has notability. You have to google him a little carefully, with key words like Catholic because there are a lote of Michael mannings in the world. But he appears to be a legitimate personality within the North American Catholic community. Even the list of books on the page is lousy, mixing what appear to be pamphlets with at least one real book: Questions and Answers for Today's Catholic: A Catholic Answers Difficult. Note the publisher, Thomas Nelson. that alone would establish notability. This notability debate is probably unnecessary. Flag the article for needing improvement and keep it.Elan26 (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Keep for the reasons Elan26 cited for keeping Fg2 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elan's reasons are compelling. In addition to web sources, there will be dead tree sources. GRBerry 13:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would consider withdrawing the AFD if some concrete sources could be located. So far we know he's published a book (more?) and written some pamphletes but there are still no verifiable 3rd party references showing this.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazon lists the book --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately simply being an author doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE which stats that the person must be regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
Delete - Quick search didn't result in any worthy refs. Hooper (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is 2 years old and completely unsourced, no sources whatsoever. Delete per WP:NOTABILITY.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:46, 25 May 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.