Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wesley Lord

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Wesley Lord

John Wesley Lord (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Is this bishop sufficiently notable? I don't think the article shows it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep no different from a mayor, anyway, but many links show up on google books. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (Does a mayor necessarily get a page?) How many bishops (of different churches) are there in a given US state? (Google gives 105 hits for "John Wesley Lord" most of which seem to be valid. Some are for John Wesley, others from wikipedia + clones.) -- roundhouse 09:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - A Google search on '"John Wesley Lord" -Wikipedia' turns up a number of interesting articles on Lord, including this Time article where he makes some anti-Catholic statements and this New York Times article where Lord joins Martin Luther King Jr. in an anti-segregation protest. (I almost wonder if both people described in the articles are the same person.) Clearly, this individual was once an influential spokesperson. The problem with this article is that the primary author (Pastorwayne) cannot distinguish between stating historically relevant facts (the person's anti-segregation work or his anti-Catholic statements) and facts that describe the individual but have little relevance to the modern reader (the schools where this person was educated or the exact dates on which the person was ordained). The article needs to be rewritten to describe the person's notability, but it should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite per Dr. Submillimeter. -- Black Falcon 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite per Submillimeter. (And in 1960 that was a normal attitude toward a Catholic President...) --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment if so, was his making them a notable event? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC).Carlossuarez46 21:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think the fact that TIME was asking Bishop Lord to effectively represent the feelings of skeptical Protestants generally speaks for itself. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Dr. Submillimeter . The cites establish notability. Please add thenm to the article. Edison 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - (change vote) Dr S makes a convincing case for this bishop, although the primary author (Pastorwayne) does not. I would be interested in views on Samuel Heistand, another bishop under afd. -- roundhouse 09:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I do not feel that the article currently has adequate references/sources, I am confident that such references can be found. Tag for Cleanup/References. WMMartin 14:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I recommend using Template:Importance on this article. Dr. Submillimeter 16:16, 21 February 2007 (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.