Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey S. Grob

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. This AfD suggests that a conversation about WP:NBISHOP may be needed, as most of these comments are about auxiliary bishops in general rather than the notability of this particular subject. Regardless, there is no consensus here to delete the article. – bradv🍁 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey S. Grob[edit]

[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)

Auxiliary bishops-are not automatically notable , because they have no responsibility for a diocese. No substantial coverage, just announcements. DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep: Here we go again... Let me remind you of the last time this happened: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Miguel Romero Fernández. Since then I've/we've added Elias R. Lorenzo, Michael A. Saporito, Gregory J. Studerus, Ramon Bejarano and Bruce Lewandowski as Auxiliaries including the other two who were appointed to the Archdiocese of Chicago, Kevin M. Birmingham and Robert J. Lombardo. They may not lead the diocese but are overseeing sections of a diocese. Do you realize that sometimes Auxiliaries are appointed to lead a Diocese? What will this come down to, that we never add Auxiliaries and delete the pages for the ones we already have?... Roberto221 (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roman Catholic bishops are notable; I agree with Roberto221-Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure if we have an automatic pass of WP:BISHOPS - Grob is an Auxiliary bishop appointed by the Pope News the article makes the claim that "Grob is scheduled to be consecrated as a bishop." - but it is not reverenced, so is this WP:TOOSOON? Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's referenced. Look at the 4th reference, first paragraph of the reference. Roberto221 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the media sources referenced in the article make him notable per GNG, and there is no carve-out for auxillary bishops in WP:NBISHOP. Moreover, it is irrational to delete the article as sometimes auxillaries get ordained. Wikimedia software automatically puts up a little warning against creating an article that has been previously deleted. This warning would be enough to scare away a decent chunk of so-called "content creator" type editors for good. If this article is deleted and he gets to be a regular bishop someday, I would not expect the article to be re-created. Change my vote to Delete if the wikimedia software is reconfigured so that the previously deleted article warning does not show up for deleted auxiliary bishops prior to the closing of the AfD proceeding.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the Catholic Church a bishop, is a bishop, is a bishop until he's the pope. They may function differently depending on where they are and what they do, but they are all form the same order and are responsible for episcopal leadership in the Church. In a Church council/synod they all get one vote regardless. I do want to correct a couple of assertions above: all bishops are ordained bishop and auxiliaries are real bishops. The diocesan bishop has the ultimate responsibility in the local church, but his auxiliaries are not less of a bishop than he is. Farragutful (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roberto221, Farragutful and past outcomes. Auxiliary bishops in the Roman Catholic Church are typically administrators of a defined area, usually several counties such as the suburbs of a major city that is the see of a metropolitan (Archbishop). They are also honorary bishops in a defunct diocese, such as in the former Ottoman Empire. Finally, they all get one equal vote in synods. In this particular case, he would probably govern part of the 1,400 square miles for the purposes of running that area, confirming teenagers, etc., and is to be Titular Bishop of Abora by the Euphrates. If this were an Episcopal or Lutheran assistant bishop, I would probably agree to delete, but in the Roman Catholic Church they have both substantive jobs and are figureheads of ancient sees. Unlike in some Christian denominations, only a bishop can ordain other clerics and preside over Catholic confirmations. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roberto221. Not having responsibility for a diocese ≠ not notable. I can think of several auxiliaries (e.g. Robert Barron, Fulton J. Sheen, Joseph Ha) who are more notable than the Ordinaries of some residential dioceses. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bishops are simply managers. Some are good managers, others are bad managers. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse exposed many bishops as failing the community and failing to deal correctly with their staff, their employees, ordained to the order of presbyterate to directly assist bishops. Bishops avoided the Royal Commission, Archbishops stonewalled and one claimed that for the Royal Commission to pursue Bishops for failing to deal with criminals said, on record, "that would violate the primacy of conscience" of the criminal. Bishops are simply managers and they had to be dragged - all over the world, look at the fall of Theodore (no-longer-Cardinal) McCarrick, disgraced and returned to the lay state - kicking and screaming into bankruptcy and the courts over child sexual abuse. They can no longer hide from their duty to uphold criminal law, and protect the community. Just because they have ecclesiastical office does not mean they have any notability per se. WP:NBISHOP should be scrapped and Bishops should face GNG just like anyone else has to. Ante up, why should Bishops be something special when they ran from criminal law and protection of the community from paedophiles for so long? Why should Bishops have notability and not notoriety? --Whiteguru (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why keep articles on dictators, depots, mobsters and their henchmen? The difference is, what now?...Roberto221 (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep -- at least for major churches such as Catholics. In the Anglican Church in UK we invariably have articles on suffrigan bishops (who have a similar role) and archdeacons. Whiteguru's attack on bishops does not address the point that these are important ecclesiastical official. The TOOSOON point is technically valid, but if appointment is certain, it is rather pointless to delete an article that will needed in a few months. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NBISHOP is a descriptive essay which prescribes no policy or guideline. It explicitly refers back to WP:GNG for determining notability of Catholic people. Elizium23 (talk) 16:55, 21 September 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.