Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Chadwick

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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Chadwick[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)

The refs given (and I didn't see significantly better ones on a BEFORE) don't add up to SIGCOV or notability. Ingratis (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chadwick is listed in Debrett's People of Today which Wikipedia describes as follows: "contains biographical details of approximately 20,000 notable people from the entire spectrum of British society. The selection of entrants is made by the editorial staff of Debrett's and entries are reviewed annually to ensure accuracy and relevance. ... Like its rival publication Who's Who, selection of entrants is at the editorial team's discretion and there is no payment or obligation to purchase." If Chadwick is notable enough to get into Debrett's People of Today, he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Noel S McFerran (talk)
Delete No sources found, a total of 6 hits on his name in Gnews, and most aren't about him. He gets mentions for the law firm he used to work for, but only in passing. He might be notable with a religious context, not for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He might be notable with a religious context, not for wikipedia." I thought that Wikipedia covered all topics including religion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was implying that he might be better served in an encyclopedia like the Catholic Encyclopedia, not all priests are notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwick is not a priest. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"member of a religious order", making him even less notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"No sources found." I have added sources from The Daily Telegraph, The Catholic Herald, and Hereford Times. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most only mention him in passing, they aren't about him. I'm still not seeing notability for a cleric. There is 13 000 of these fellows in the Order of Malta if memory serves me, most don't need an article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 2016 there were only 55 Knights of Justice (they are the ones who take the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience). Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As said in the nomination, there appear to be no very significant sources (rather than no sources at all), and it still looks that way to me: the ones you've added are primarily about the Latin mass in England, to which Chadwick is incidental. Interviews, I understand, don't count as independent sources. There's no question of his being notable in a legal context and from the sources provided it doesn't appear that he is notable in a religious context either. You could perhaps merge some of the most relevant content of the sources to the article on the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, although it doesn't actually mention him as it stands. Ingratis (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a Knight of Justice Fra Julian is now, since the death of the Lieutenant Fra Marco today, one of the 55 people who can be elected Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (I'm not sure that he has the ancestry to allow this). My reason for creating this article about a knight of Justice is so that there is easy access to information about candidates. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above comments that the sources here don't quite cut it: none of them are both significant (i.e. more than a passing mention) and independent (i.e. more than an interview). He does appear in People of Today, but its reliability is uncertain and, in any event, it's not the sort of source that automatically makes someone notable under guidelines like WP:ANYBIO. I'm not finding any solid alternatives to deletion, either: he's dabbled in a lot of things, so there's no single article that would make an appropriate merge/redirect target, in my view. If Chadwick does receive GNG-qualifying coverage in the future (perhaps if he becomes a candidate for some other position), then I'd support restoring the article at that time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious -- I am very doubtful if what he has done and achieved is enough to constitute WP-notability. I think we should assume good faith and that the content is true. BLP issues require sources and we have some though perhaps not the best ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per McFerran. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. While I agree that the Debrett's People of Today source is significant coverage, it is only one source. I would also consider the 2009 Daily Telegraph source significant coverage. The other sources are all trivial mentions or are interviews which lack independence. Given that there are only two sources which constitute significant independent coverage, this is not enough to reach the minimum requirement of multiple sources ("the rule of 3") to meet SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 4meter4. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:56, 15 June 2022 (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.