Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Nevard


 * 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. BJ Talk 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Nevard

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

Obscure creationist. Only claim to fame is to being the secretary of the likewise-obscure Daylight Origins Society -- itself under AfD. The article currently cites no third party sources, and the majority of the sources it does cite only make trivial mention of the topic. HrafnTalkStalk 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   —HrafnTalkStalk 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —HrafnTalkStalk 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —HrafnTalkStalk 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —HrafnTalkStalk 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Regardless of whether the Society is notable, this person is not notable. Fewer and less notable google hits than, say, me. (A good litmus test, to be sure!) HG | Talk 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems clear that being involved with running an organisation, even if notable, does not confer notability.  Richard Pinch (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Being the head of a not-well-known group doesn't seem to be a claim to notability. (Even if the group were notable, we wouldn't very often have individual articles on the group's officers unless they had outside claims to fame). EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless Daylight Origins Society is kept, in which case merge there. If the society is WP:N, then its secretary should be mentioned there. Absent significant independent coverage, however, we should not have an article on just Nevard. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Daylight Origins Society per Jack-A-Roe below. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Daylight Origins Society with retention of data, not a blank-and-redirect type merge. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  Merge and Redirect to Daylight Origins Society. Insufficient notability other than as officer of the organization and editor of their magazine.  With a redirect the content can remain accessible in the history of this page, so editors can retrieve it to perform the merge. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [modified my comment after further research.]
 * Update: The other article at Daylight Origins Society has been kept, following an AfD closed as "no consensus." I've reviewed the details and sources in this article (as of this current time stamp) and confirmed that there is nothing on this page that is not already in the other article, except for a couple of sentences that are unsourced.  Therefore, if the decision is to merge and redirect, no merging of content is needed.  This page can simply be redirected to the other one, and all the information is already there, as far as I can tell.  There seems to be no need to delete this page and its history, when a redirect will do just as well.  If the decision is to delete, it would be a good idea to add a redirect after deletion anyway, since just about all of the sources that discuss the organization also mention Nevard.  It's not a big issue to me either way, but it seems the redirect would be the best solution.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge then delete any interesting info into Daylight Origins Society, and then delete that per it's discussion. Or just delete as it's non notable. Verbal   chat  17:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete after merging any significant information into the DOS article, though there may not be any as all the sources are selfpublished. . dave souza, duplicate !vote removed by Jerry talk 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "merge then delete" is not a valid recommendation (same as "delete after merging"). "Delete unless (fill-in complicated criteria which requires research outside of the discussion here)"  is equally unhelpful.  Please help out the closing administrator by !voting consistent with the deletion policy.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC
 * Comment There's no deletion policy prohibiting or invalidating !votes that are conditional and complicated. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply to that is here.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Searched through google findings. Couldn't find an independent reliable source to confirm any claim of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above deletion argument as I too was unable to find any sources on either Google News or Google Books. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable individual, the info is all in the DOS article and in the unlikely event of someone searching for him the search box will find the articles with his name, so a redirect is unnecessary. . dave souza, talk 21:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dave, this is your second "delete" !vote here - your prior entry on this page is at 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC).  Would you like to strike through one of them, or change one of them to a "comment"?  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed his first !vote.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jerry, my impression was that this ws a new vote discounting those that were qualified by mergying any useful information into the main article. So, my view is to delete. . dave souza, talk 12:58, 17 September 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.