Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew D. Parvensky


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrew D. Parvensky

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Only significant coverage found is an obituary in a local newspaper. Epbr123 (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, A7: no assertion of notability. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I speedied this as an A7 but failed to notice that the nominator here had declined a speedy deletion previously. As such, it probably isn't appropriate to speedy the article and I have restored it. However, delete as failing WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for having received full length staff written obituaries in both the Pittsburgh Post Gazette  and a subsidiary of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review  and then another 40+ hits in Google News . Icewedge (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a memorial site and having had an obituary written about you doesn't convey notability in it's own right - only if the life described was encyclopaedic in its own right. Further, news.google.com searches for "Andrew D. Parvensky" and "Andrew Parvensky" (with quote marks) each gave 26 and 12  hits respectively, the vast majority of which were from "The Valley Independent", a local Newspaper itself not currently on wikipedia. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT really has nothing to do with the issue at hand Usrnme h8er, all it says really is that people don't get instant notability because they are dead, a claim I am not perpetuating.
 * Regular obituaries (where a friend or family member writes it and sends it to the newspaper) don't count much for notability, but if two separate newspapers assigned staff writers to cover his death then he just might be notable. Icewedge (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly - it could indicate that was notable. But for the number of staff written obituaries to be notable in and of themselves, imo, there would need to be more than 2 - the obituaries, the writing thereof, or the subject of the obituaries would need to be encyclopaedic. I still havn't been presented with anything other than the two obits as indication of notability and as far as I'm concerned there is no notability in recieving obituaries in local news. The cause of the obituaries might be notable - but where is it? Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Local newspapers tend to write obits for local people. The article doesn't tell me anything. He was a pastor. Might be important for the local community, but unless he's done something I don't see how he's encyclopedic material. _ Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Local religious leader with local obituaries. No evidence of wider interest or significance. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BIO says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a major city newspaper with its own Wikipedia article, and no-one has presented evidence that either the paper or the reporter might not be independent of the subject. Nor is there anything in the notability policy indicating that obituaries should count less than other coverage. So if we are to delete this, we need some compelling reason to override prevailing guidelines. Hqb (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - in this case the presumption of notability, which two obituaries raises, is not sustained when the sources are looked at. He was there a long time, and he inaugurated a church building project.  Thus he is locally a well known figure and gets the obituaries, but he is not notable in the Wiki sense.  Springnuts (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The obit in the Valley Independent clinches it for me. It explicitly says that the paper ran "countless features" about him and his work, beginning in 1968 when he was leading efforts to build a chapel in Venezuela.  The sources already linked above thus refute the "local" figure issue and the lack of sources issue.  They do tell us that a good article will require an editor to dead tree research.  GRBerry 15:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article makes no assertion to notability and the references cited do not support notability. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no assertion of notability in this article. If the obits contained an assertion of notability then this should be included in the article and deletion would not be an option but all the obituaries say is that he did the normal priestly things and talked to his nephews about footballPorturology (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.