Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Francis Sharma

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.

Anthony Francis Sharma

Anthony Francis Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

lacks secondary and reliable source, fails WP:Notability.

previous

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding sourcing: both the Catholic Herald and UCA are reliable, independent sources. They might cover Catholic matters specifically, but both provide independent coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the subject is notable, there should have been other sources independent of catholic. I can not find even trivial mention in other independent sources. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) Yeti Dai (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Now hold on there! Sometimes a topic is only notable with regards to a specific community (in this case, a ~1.1 billion person community). If article's subject is covered by reliable and independent institutions (both CH and UCA are considered as such)–regardless of those institutions' focus–then that's enough. We have articles for some rather niche but very, very notable high-level math concepts that have only received reliable coverage within the mathematics academic community. Your standards would preclude them. As for

  WP:NBISHOP: it might not be a policy (maybe it might be time to fix that!), but it is a consistently accepted standard across multiple significant WikiProjects. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Speedy Keep per Pbritti. And yes, Roman Catholic bishops are notable (see
  WP:NBISHOP). @Yeti Dai: it would be easiest if you just withdraw the nomination. StAnselm (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There is no consensus regarding

  WP:NBISHOP. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) Yeti Dai (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Speedy Keep Roman Catholic bishops are considered notable. Thank You-RFD (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep.
  WP:SK3. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep. His appointment in 2007 was reported in The Times of India.[1]--Jahaza (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't see that. I will withdraw the nomination. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per David Eppstein. Mccapra (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep also coverage as his time as an ambassador, here [2]. We should have GNG by now. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW keep just as an excuse to pontificate (sorry) about major religious figures: Catholic bishops are presumed notable because, digging deeply enough into foreign language, online, and offline sources, we will find plenty eventually. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert-Joseph Coffy dealt with this a year ago. Basically, if anyone thinks a Catholic bishop should be deleted, they've not done a thorough enough BEFORE; that's what the presumption of notability means: we have a reasonable expectation that it can be found based on our experience in previous discussions. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 2 September 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.