Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Michael Moses

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. Owen× ☎ 21:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Moses

[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)

Notability unclear from sources in article. The news articles containing him are articles written about stories he was involved in as matters of Catholic interest, but do not show that he himself is notable. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 20:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:RELPEOPLE. Also, there are enough WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. The article is net positively good, and I don't need to do a source search. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does it meet WP:RELPEOPLE? He is not a head of a major religion; he has not played an important role in a significant religious event that has itself received considerable coverage; has not made contributions to the philosophy of religion; and has not been recognized as an authoritative source on religious matters or writings. Neither is he a bishop or head of a large Protestant congregation. He is an associate pastor.

Most of the coverage including him does not point out or demonstrate his notability as a person. I myself am a Catholic priest who has been mentioned or featured in a few Catholic news articles, but I am in no way notable enough for a Wiki article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 20:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a WP:GNG pass (and WP:RELPEOPLE doesn't apply here). The closest I can get is two articles from Catholic News Agency (here, here), but we need multiple that are independent of the subject and each other, plus these aren't necessarily WP:SIGCOV of him. The rest of the sources are affiliated or unreliable blog-type sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: Do we all agree to redirect to List of American Catholic priests per WP:ATD? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it would be an appropriate redirect; no one who might be searching for him would be served by a redirection to an incomplete list that couldn't even include him. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to see the value of redirection as suggested. There are tens of thousands of Catholic priests in the U.S. and only a small fraction of them are notable. Thus, per WP:CSC, the selection criterion for this list is Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia, and Moses would not qualify as not qualifying for a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV and not passing WP:MUSICBIO. None of the current sources (Catholic News agency reports) are independent of the Church, and I don’t see any secular reviews. If there was a review in either America or similar reliable religious media, that would go far to showing notability. I also don’t see any touring as a musician outside of Eastern Texas/Louisiana. Normally, I’d advocate for keeping or merging such articles - my record on AfD is pretty much on the inclusionist side of religious articles. However, I find myself agreeing with Dclemens1971 as to the lack of utility in a redirect to a larger list. If you find and better sources, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:39, 19 October 2024 (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.