Talk:Nadia Bolz-Weber

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- it has 4 reliable sources: Washington Post, Denver Post, Daily Mail, On Being. why would anyone improve from a stub, if it's on BS's kill list. Duckduckgo (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You should retract that last statement immediately, as you have no grounds for that statement. Whilst you not the article creator, who recreated what was essentially, still is, a copy of the original added a couple of new sources it still far off GNG and even then its essentially WP:one event that the notable sources cover. I fully intend to take this back to AFD if necessary for another community discussion. Blethering  Scot  23:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Duckduckgo, you should probably tone that down a bit and I'm just going to boldly strike that comment for you. This was recreated by John Hajicek only a month after being deleted by community consensus. Yes, there was a view that more coverage might establish notability but individual editors making personal decisions about when that has occurred (as opposed to taking it to DRV for consideration) probably isn't the best idea. Ignoring consensus and simply declaring notability has been established is going to raise eyebrows. Would DRV permit recreation on the basis of new coverage? Yeah, quite possibly, but at this stage I would work on the basis that this is going to be taken back to AFD because that hasn't been properly established. Stalwart 111  02:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks User: Stalwart111. I have now taken back to AFD. Blethering  Scot  16:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I stand by my comment. i'm confident that a reasonable person reviewing BS's conduct will agree with me. take it to whatever tribunal you dare. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you watch, what you say. You were and still are on a thin line with comments like that. Blethering  Scot  19:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphan
Article is still currently an orphan, unsure where would be relevant to include links to this bio. Blethering  Scot  22:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? List of notable Lutherans? --Tbanderson (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nadia Bolz-Weber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160413022824/http://www.more.com/reinvention-money/second-acts/second-act-from-rebel-to-reverend to http://www.more.com/reinvention-money/second-acts/second-act-from-rebel-to-reverend

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Media coverage
This section is inappropriate and unnecessary. It violates numerous guidelines on what wikipedia is, and link farms, not news etc.. and it has many unreliable sources. It makes the article appear to be a COI case. Sources are included when they add to the body of the article in some was, integrated into the article, we don't list every source that mentions a topic. -- Green  C  00:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)