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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Luis Miguel Romero Fernández

Luis Miguel Romero Fernández (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

We normally consider bishops of major denominations organized in a territorial manner to be notable. I'm bringing this here to help resolve whether this applies only to the bishop in charge of a diocese, or, as here, an auxiliary bishop, who assists the Diocesan Bishop. The basis for the presumption that bishops are notable was based on the argument of their influence in the area, analogous to mayors of cities, etc. I helped establish this presumption about 12 years ago; I don't think I had auxiliary or assistant bishops in mind at the time, but I think I would be reluctant to make the same presumption for them. However, either conclusion would be reasonable. (For perspective, the Roman catholic church in the US has at the moment 156 Diocesan bishops and 76 auxiliary bishops as well as 94 retired diocesan bishops and 43 retired auxiliary bishops.) [1] DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Fr. Romero's selection as bishop was announced earlier today; so far it's been covered by the secular press ( Newsday, Europa Press) and the independent religious press ( CNA/ ACI Prensa, ZENIT), as well as his diocesan newspaper ( Long Island Catholic) and the Catholic News Service, which is owned by the USCCB. Cheers, gnu 57 03:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Opposed What is going on here!! As I stated on Fr. Romero's talk page, I have created the last 60+ pages for new Bishops/Auxiliary Bishops with references and linked them to the Archdioceses\Dioceses pages. The Historical list of the Catholic bishops of the United States will prove that. I've never encountered any problems like this before. In fact, last week I created pages for Michael A. Saporito, Gregory J. Studerus, and Ramon Bejarano, they were named as Auxiliaries and their pages have been linked to the Wikidata projects, yet they're not up for deletion!

Roberto221 ( talk) 10:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Roberto, I've seen other articles also on auxiliary bishops, and I'm not certain what to do about them so I am bringing the test AfD to see what others think. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment. If appointment announcements are considered in RS coverage, then I would say every aux is notable, because they generally receive the same kind of attention upon the occasion of their appointment. However, after that point they disappear into a black hole. Nobody covers their installation if they have a public one (I'm pretty sure they all do) and they seldom do anything newsworthy unlike the ordinary. So I would say their notability hinges on that initial flurry of coverage. If we are willing to accept that, then yes, otherwise, no. Elizium23 ( talk) 11:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Only if they've actually accomplished something noteworthy. Historically, some have been college presidents, vicar-generals, or coadjutors, but barring some recognized activity, only became notable when they came into their own. Most are largely mid-level managers. Manannan67 ( talk) 18:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Something to think about. When is it appropriate to create the pages: days, weeks, months, years after consecration/installation? Are we regressing to days of missing/old information? Roberto221 ( talk) 19:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  It seems to me that if notability is established by the announcement of their appointment, then it is appropriate to create the article at that time. Otherwise, no clue. Elizium23 ( talk) 19:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I should note that there will be some with existing articles (such as Robert Barron) when nominated, obviously those should be retained. There is also more than a decent chance (I'll try to add some % in the next day or so, I think under 50% for USA) that will later be named the Ordinary of a diocese. -- Dcheney ( talk) 20:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Insider information, huh? I'll make the changes when announced. Thanks.. Roberto221 ( talk) 21:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Robert Barron has been a bishop for five years. Before that, he was quite famous for his "Word on Fire" and "Catholicism" series, so naturally he had an article. Nothing about his status is changing and David is not necessarily privy to anything else. Elizium23 ( talk) 21:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, to be clear, the reference to their own diocese was meant for Auxiliary Bishops in general, not the random example I chose. -- Dcheney ( talk) 04:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  I had a chance to run some rough stats. From 1900 to 1999, there were 541 Auxiliary Bishops named to US dioceses. Of those, at least 338 were later named to their own diocese (62%). -- Dcheney ( talk) 05:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep weather any auxiliary bishop is notable is not the question here. We clearly have enough sources on Fernandez to justify having an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Perhaps that is the question here. After all, DGG said this is a test case. What if we began nominating many other aux bishops, would all survive? Elizium23 ( talk) 21:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  In general, if you search the next day for any newly named Auxiliary Bishop worldwide, you will find at least a handful of articles in various regular news outlets. I think the better question is how many regular news articles do you find 5 years after their appointment. -- Dcheney ( talk) 04:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  You might say that auxiliary bishops could be covered by WP:BLP1E - the only thing in their lives that garners coverage is their appointment! Elizium23 ( talk) 04:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  I don't think we "clearly have enough sources" at all. The sourcing, in both quality and quantity, falls far below our standards. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Sources are not the problem here, you can always add the Vatican Press Releases plus local newspapers/Television as well as the Archdiocese/Diocese web sites. I just don't "oversource" the same materiel. And those standards are what? Roberto221 ( talk) 21:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- We have articles on most suffragan bishops in the Anglican Church, so that I do not see why not Auxiliary bishops in the Catholic Church. Strictly he will not be a bishop until formally consecrated as such, due about 5 weeks hence, but it is pointless to delete an article which would need to be re-created next month. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - DGG is right to bring this here for discussion. I think Elizium23 has hit it on the head. The only thing that garners temporary coverage is their appointment and as Roscelese noted, this is not widespread coverage to our standards. The appointment of an Archbishop is one thing. That garners real coverage, not just the Catholic Review or the Archdioceses' own newspaper. This seems a WP:BLP1E in my view. Also, the reference to the Anglican Church is not an equivalent hierarchy. Bodding ( talk) 19:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Well if you want to go that far, what about state legislators, and congressional representatives? Majority of their pages only have a bio, and career. They're not mentioned unless they sponsor/introduce some "newsworthy" legislation that garners in the press. Roberto221 ( talk) 21:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources are too closely related to the subject. The very basic criteria for GNG is not met here. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The first press release comes from: A)the Vatican, B)the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, C)the diocese which they're appointed to, D)the diocese which they're from, E)local media. Which source makes it not "too closely related"? Roberto221 ( talk) 21:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

A, B, C, and D are all publications generated by the Catholic Church itself and are therefore not independent of the subject. At the time I reviewed the article there were no sources from local media. There still aren't. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - he's nominated to be the auxiliary bishop of the Roman Catholic church in all of Long Island, NY, a very large diocese, and will be consecrated within a month. FWIW, I am Episcopalian. Bearian ( talk) 01:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- we need to start regarding church related publications the same as we do any other. Keeping this article on the basis of the church related publications could help set establish this. Also, Kingiron suggests that keeping this article will allow the website to treat the denominations equally, and I agree.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 05:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment to closer. I don't see how an article based entirely on sources produced by the Catholic Church could meet the independent sourcing criteria for WP:N. This would be like allowing business publications by a corporation to source an article on that corporation. It just doesn't make sense. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, are publications by the Catholic Church reliable? Maybe they are, but they are definitely not independent sources in this situation, and therefore do not help establish notability for this person. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I guess when a highly prized rookie makes it to the "Big Leagues", the sports leagues, teams, and sports sites are also not independent sources? Roberto221 ( talk) 00:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Just to be clear, for the article in question there are 6 current sources: two are from Newsday, a general purpose newspaper in Long Island; one from the USCCB, one from the Archdiocese, one from notimerica (portal of Europa Press), and one from Diario de Cádiz. Of those, only 2 are Catholic sources. -- Dcheney ( talk) 00:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 04:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I think there's enough coverage here for WP:GNG and not just an WP:OUTCOMES-based keep based on his new (or soon to be) bishop title. But also, re the WP:BLP1E argument raised by Elizium23: As former head of UTPL he arguably also passes WP:PROF#C6, and (if one can find it amid the new-bishop news coverage) there's also news coverage of his role there, for instance [2] [3] [4] [5]. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  David Eppstein, Okay, so keep for the specific case, but what about the general case? This is also a test balloon for Catholic auxiliaries in general. Not many of them will pass WP:PROF. Elizium23 ( talk) 07:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  Maybe, but they're all going to be prominent churchmen who have held other important positions before being raised to bishop. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comments: Comments made by David Eppstein are persuasive. It should be noted that the sourcing examples provided are all from the same source (La Hora), and while possibly acceptable for content, only count as one towards advancing notability. In cases of auxiliary or assistant bishops in general there needs to be more than a general presumption of notability for inclusion. "Prominent churchmen who have held other important positions" would need significant coverage in reliable sources if notability is not clear according to WP:PROF, especially when offering a subject holds are held a "Prestigious position". WP:NBISHOP is certainly "just an essay" but the criteria there (WikiProject Catholicism Notability guide) is relevant just as with WP:CLERGY. Otr500 ( talk) 09:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • They're mostly only in La Hora because after finding one story in that newspaper I searched for more in the same site to find stories from other parts of his time at UTPL. There are similar stories in other sources e.g. [6] [7].
• Keep This is a WP:BASIC pass, maybe not by much, because despite the quantity of sources provided in this AFD few qualify as independent SIGCOV, but there is enough. This is also a borderline WP:NPROF pass as mentioned above. I sympathize with the concerns raised by Elizium23 above regarding the larger issues at play here. However, as they say in legal-speak, this case is a poor vehicle for modifying precedent. Suggest that the WP:BLP1E concern be raised for this area at an appropriate central discussion forum instead. Spectrum {{ UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 17:54, 31 March 2020 (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.