Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Korab

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. Courcelles 11:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Korab

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

Subject is a bishop, but appears not to have enough coverage to support a verifiable article, let alone meet either the general or biographical notability requirements. A Google search almost exclusively returns mirror sites, and Google News returns a complete blank. I've also put his name into Factiva, and found absolutely nothing. -- Lear's Fool 10:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 10:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 10:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 10:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if article can be cleaned up and more sources are used. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The number of redlinks and the lack of any episcopal post suggest to me that his whole career is NN, but I do not really know; hecne no vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a Bishop in a splinter breakaway church does not automatically make him notable by Wikipedia standards. Fails WP:BIO]] due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources as noted by Lear's Fool. Edison (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Seems to be yet another Thuc line bishop with no other claim. Perhaps there should be an article for Thuc line bishops where these can all be redirected like minor Simpsons characters. JASpencer (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2010 (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.