Mar Mari Emmanuel: Hence, per Wikipedia guidelines, this may not sufficiently demonstrate Notability WP:Notability .  Additionally, we would also like to note that no evidence of permission WP:F11 was given for publication, even though HGMM is not deemed as an organisation himself, he is clearly associated both in the Wikipedia article and online through multiple sources (regardless of source notability) with the non-profit charitable church organisation that he both directly belongs to and oversees, Christ The Good Shepherd Church.   Finally, also as a personal request which we believe is as important as the aforementioned and as clearly stated in the Talk section, HGMM is recognised as a clergyman and true servant of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, by his community and others who know him personally, hence, out of obedience and respect to his wishes for this page to be deleted WP:U1 , we would also like to ask your help with kindly abiding by this request, please.  GraceHanna53 ( talk ) 01:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How can we believe that you are acting on behalf of Mar Mari Emmanuel .  It is possible for anyone in the world to come and say that they are acting on behalf of someone.  The criterias you mentioned for speedy deletion do not belong to mainspace.  WP:F11 is for files and WP:U1 is for userpages.  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 02:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Thilsebatti , this is an authentic request from the original source, directly from His Grace.  As mentioned in one of my previous comments on his talk page, "...for any proof or legitimacy that this request has come directly from him, I ask you please contact the Secretary of our Bishop's church, Christ The Good Shepherd Church, with email that can be found on our Church website, www.cgsc.org.au.".  Unfortunately, when I tried to post the email itself in a prior comment, it was automatically omitted by Wikipedia.  I can try and dictate it here without the algorithm potentially omitting it again, i.e., "admin, at, cgsc, dot, org, dot. au".  I sincerely hope that helps.  GraceHanna53 ( talk ) 06:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment we accept Catholic bishops as notable (as far as I know), I'm not sure why this type of bishop would be any different.  I can't find sources, but I'll take a longer look.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In the past we’ve debated obscure bishops about whom almost nothing is known, and we’ve kept them.  We know quite a lot about this person, and indeed the article demonstrates that they are not just a private person at all.  Obedience and respect are not Wikipecia policies.  Mccapra ( talk ) 06:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , Iraq ,  and Australia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Smashes WP:GNG .  Doctorhawkes ( talk ) 08:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - could those voting ! keep please help me see how the subject meets the GNG?  I don't immediately see that a bishop who apparently overseas a single congregation of a splinter church is notable.  The references on the page are fairly weak in terms of notability IMO and I'm not seeing much else.  JMWt ( talk ) 09:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I mention to the nominator that WP:F11 applies to the deletion of files such as photographs.  There is one photograph in this article which was apparently created by User:Ghareebota as their own work, and Ghareebota themself indicates that they have given permission for use of the photo on Wikipedia.  (We are concerned with permission by the photographer, not permission by the subject of the picture.)  WP:U1 applies only to the deletion of pages in the User: space of Wikipedia (for example, User:Metropolitan90 is my userpage) and has nothing to do with deleting regular articles such as the article about Mar Mari Emmanuel that we are talking about.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably Delete -- If the subject was a diocesan bishop of a major denomination, we would certainly keep this, but he appears to be a schismatic bishop with a single church of his own but some ministry to a few other schismatic church.   I doubt that is enough to make him notable.   Is this sufficiently referenced for a BLP article?  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 16:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I get the impression that many people are giving opinions based on the obviously unsatisfactory nomination rather than on the available sources.  We have found only one reliable source which does no more than confirm that the subject was a suffragan bishop (i.e. an assistant bishop) in the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East in less than a single sentence.  It is claimed that he is now a proper bishop, but in a schism of a schism.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 18:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  08:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I hate to have to abide by a request for deletion that violates Wikipedia's processes, but I fail to see how the article meets WP:GNG .  None of the sources are reliable, with tweets, official websites and news stories not about the subject present, and the books (although I don't have access to them) seem like they would fall short of WP:SIGCOV .  If any of the people who voted keep could explain how the article meets WP:GNG and provide reliable sources, I am more than happy to change my vote.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 10:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are some published items from conventional news organizations about Mar Mari Emmanuel ( [19] ) or referring to him ( [20] , [21] ) and at least one book reference available on-line through Google Books ( [22] ), so he seems to meet the criteria for notability.  His past role in the Assyrian church is also probably enough to make him notable.  Bistropha ( talk ) 14:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From my understanding a one liner name mention in a book and a brief mainstream media coverage do not suffice the General notability guidelines of Wikipedia.  Happy to be corrected, with all humility and respect.  GraceHanna53 ( talk ) 03:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Daily Mail source is considered unreliable under WP:RSP , so I don't think that counts to notability.  The SBS and ABC sources aren't about the subject although do mention him, and the book is a single line in a list of people.  I still don't think this article is notable, despite the dubious circumstances in which the article was nominated for deletion.  And to be clear @ GraceHanna53 : , I don't support your church or your dangerous and hateful views.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand, @ JML1148 , and we are not asking for your support here whilst also not being judgmental, at the same time.  Regarding nomination, you will need to kindly excuse our novice & immature approach as this is our very first time attempting to perform this type of action.  GraceHanna53 ( talk ) 01:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 14:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  As others have noted, I hate to agree to delete when the request is an obvious violation of Wikipedia policy, however I cannot find significant coverage of this person in reliable sources.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 15:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there is clearly not enough SIGCOV for the article to pass GNG; he mainly just seems to be notable for a video saying some stupid stuff, which is not enough for an article.  I don't like having to agree to delete when the nomination is so against policy, but it is what it is.  AryKun ( talk ) 12:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  Closer should take the appropriate action regarding nom's group account.  // Timothy :: talk 10:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not enough in reliable sources to meet GNG/BIO.  Rupples ( talk ) 23:11, 17 May 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: delete