Robert Burkitt: Nothing I can find that he was anything other than a middle ranking anglican cleric, which doesn't seem to meet WP:CLERGY JMWt ( talk ) 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland .  JMWt ( talk ) 14:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Archdeacon of Lismore , although merge would be possible, but it is not as simple as that!  This is one of a very large number of permastubs created by an editor who was eventually indefinately banned from article space edits owing to issues with these.  However, this is not the most egregious of them.  Burkitt was an actual archdeacon, listed in Crockford's.  However, that is about as far as we can go.  Secondary sourcing is lacking, and archdeacons are not presumed to be notable.  Thus we have no presumed notability, and doesn't meet WP:BASIC .  As such, this article should not exist.  However, although the subject does not meet notability requirements for a page, and there is not enough that can be said about him to actually write a page, Crockfords is itself evidence of notability of a collection per WP:LISTN , and this page could therefore be merged with Archdeacon of Lismore .  I had this discussion when the page creator was still active, and we did get consensus, through AfD, for something like that at Archdeacon of Raphoe , where you can see how the archdeacon article can be massively improved if it lists the holders of the office.  The problem was that it required merging not one, but 20 archdeacon articles into that page, and consensus held that 4 of the archdeacons were independently notable for a page.  This nomination, therefore, does not really sit alone.  There are at least 6 pages that would need to be merged, and probably more.  Each needs to be considered against WP:BASIC .  I spent a lot of time on the Archdeacon of Raphoe article, and have never found sufficient time to prosecute the rest.  Merging this one alone makes little sense, but a redirect would at least preserve the information scraped from Crockford's.  Whether that is worth a redirect over delete, I will leave for others to decide.  I suggest redirect mostly because they are WP:CHEAP .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom, WP:NBIO , WP:GNG and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES .  As noted by Sirfurboy , this is yet another one of these poorly sourced, non-notable and WP:NOTEVERYTHING entries (created by an editor who was blocked for repeatedly creating/recreating exactly these types of articles) who seemed intent on creating sub-stubs on every member of the administration/clergy of the Church of Ireland .  As with many others in the creator's "series", there is no indication that the subject meets the applicable criteria.  My own WP:BEFORE search returns only the same (very poor and potentially unreliable ) sources we find in the article.  And maybe a few trivial passing mentions in other works.  Far from SIGCOV.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 19:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG .  Spleodrach ( talk ) 09:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Archdeacon of Lismore without deleting so that in due course a list of archdeacons can be added to that page, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Sirfurboy and Atlantic306 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 06:50, 4 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect