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 merge to Diocese of Fredericton. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wandlyn Snelgrove[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

WP:BLP of a person whose claim of notability is not reliably sourced. Wikipedia has no stated notability criteria for religious archdeacons at all, so getting an archdeacon into Wikipedia is a matter of getting her over WP:GNG rather than an automatic presumption of notability just for existing — but the references here are primary sources and Blogspot blogs, not reliable source coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete~~ Ignoring the many routine mentions that any run of the mill clergy member gets for officiating funerals and weddings, newspaper search finds routine announcement of appointment in the local St. John Telegraph-Journal, a single mention of her name and profession in a 2007 article about her husband (Albert Snelgrove) in the Moncton Times, a single mention in a Kings County Record article about Sussex celebrating the World Day of Prayer, and 2 mentions identifying her as the rector in a 600 word 2017 article in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner about the history of St. Anne's Chapel of Ease. Search did not find in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, and the mentions don't add up to WP:SIGCOV, so subject does not meet WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge. As per previous discussions on Archdeacons such as [1], there should probably be a page for Archdeacons of X. However, that page doesn't exist and redirects to more general pages. Unlike some Archdeacons in previous discussions, I can't find significant additional coverage (books, news) discussing Snelgrove. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, as other Archdeacons have generated coverage, but Snelgrove has only been in her post since 2017. The linking of Archdeacons of Fredericton to Wellington, Ontario does not appear sensible. I believe that Archdeacons of Fredericton should be a standalone page, and only those Archdeacons who pass WP:GNG or other particular notability guidelines should have standalone pages. But, I'm not going to write that page. Who will? Ross-c (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham

Bashereyre (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bashereyre:The examples you give were typically not deleted due to significant coverage. Tim Raphael was deleted, but has been recreated since. What is the justification for keeping an article on the current subject? Ross-c (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ross-c: I think that Archdeacons of the Anglican Church are notable by office, obviously you do not. No-one has ever given a definitive ruling on this. Is there anywhere on the site where such a discussion could take place? Kind regards Bashereyre (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bashereyre: I'm not aware of any specific guidelines for churches for which Archdeacons are a post. Comparing to the Catholic church, only quite high status positions seem to confer notability. See: WP:NCATH. As far as I've been able to find, e.g. past AFD discussions (see the actual discussion, not just the result which is often based on WP:GNG it appears that Archdeacons are not by default notable. I'm not actually a religious person so am not real-world-knowledgeable about posts and I'd be prepared to change my vote if information is provided showing that they are, but I have given this a good look through and my current opinion appears to be supported by that research. Thanks for discussing this in a constructive way. Ross-c (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ross-c: I think there is a good case for a separate Anglican wiki, which could go right down to the lady who does the flowers, ie no notability needed as long as you're/were an AnglicanBashereyre (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bashereyre: There's absolutely nothing to stop you from doing that. Here's a page on how to get started. [2]. I don't know if that Wikibook is fully up to date, but it would be a start. Ross-c (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge: We don't have a policy of automatic notability for archdeacons, nor do I think we ought; and this one doesn't seem to pass GNG. A short paragraph on an eventual Archdeacon of Fredericton article would suffice; meanwhile, a sourced list at Diocese of Fredericton would be a start. DBD 13:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete clergy at this level are not default notable, and nothing else suggests she is notable. With Catholicism only bishops are considered default notable, and I would suggest some articles there lack sourcing to justify keeping. In Anglicanism dioceses are often much smaller than Catholic dioceses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge: I'd say that Church of England archdeacons are inherently notable (similar in role/status to Catholic auxiliary bishops), but not archdeacons of smaller Anglican churches. Snelgrove only overseas an area of 32 churches [3] and remains a parish priest [4]: CoE archdeacons oversea 100-200 churches and aren't parish priests. She clearly doesn't have the same role/status. She also doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. I'd say a list of archdeacons at Diocese of Fredericton is the best way to go: any ones notable enough to have their own articles would be linked from there. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 11:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge as the praxctical solition to these articles where there insufficient information for an article--thisisone of the provisions of WP:N. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Diocese of Fredericton. Given the discussion so far, subject doesn't pass WP:GNG, but it's now clear that there is a reasonable redirect target. It's not obvious what additional information from this article would actually be merged to a list of names and dates, so changing !vote to redirect as the most sensible alternative to deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete I have not been able to find recent statistics about the diocese; the ACC stats pages stop at 2001, and there's obviously been a significant shift in thinking since then, given that in that year the diocese had no deacons. Now they have seven archdeacons for a diocese that surely has less than the 90 parishes it had two decades ago. Different dioceses have taken completely disparate approaches to this sort of structure, with some having deaneries but many having no such structure at all below the diocese as a whole. The upshot is that this is a position which, of itself, doesn't make any news, apparently, and doesn't seem to to rise to the level of notability where an article is warranted. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you to everyone who has participated in this discussion Bashereyre (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[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.