Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene White Lawrence


 * 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Arlene White Lawrence

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

Fails WP:BIO. Only has a couple of extremely trivial mentions in media, mostly in obituaries. Drawn Some (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep meets every criteria for verifiability and notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The burden is on those saying "Keep" to provide sources. Please provide them or your !vote should be disregarded. Drawn Some (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please AGF and don't threaten commentators. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the burden is equally on you, per Guide to deletion, Articles for deletion, and Deletion policy itself, to show that you have put deletion policy into action, which means looking for sources yourself. Where did you look?  Uncle G (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Pillar of Fire Church. I don't see how notability here is achieved by way of a rather passing mention and a couple of obituaries. A list of important church members in the main article would be enough, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading Uncle G's comment (below) and a brief chat with Alansohn I am more cognizant of the relevance of obituaries. I do feel that 273 words is a bit too brief and the Rocky Mountain News a bit too small to pull me into the "keep" camp, but I would be perfectly happy with a keep and would ask the closing admin not to count my vote as being on the "delete" side--if this makes sense. :) Drmies (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple obituaries about the subject are just a few of the reliable and verifiable sources included in the article that establish her independent notability separate and apart from the Pillar of Fire Church. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivial mentions in obituaries and even one's own obituary are not sufficient to establish notability. Do you have any reliable sources to support notability and verifiability or should your !vote be disregarded as well? Drawn Some (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, again, AGF and don't threaten commentators. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Obituaries are rarely, by their very natures, autobiographies. As such, they count as independent sources.  The one in the Rocky Mountain News is 273 words long, and is directly about this specific person, not a tangential mention in the context of some other subject as you claim it to be. Uncle G (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Pillar of Fire Church per Drmies. Subject fails WP:BIO, but could and should be mentioned in Pillar of Fire Church. Yilloslime T C  04:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Somewhat boring but notable and source-able to standards. See also noms for: * Orland Albert Wolfram and * Donald Justin Wolfram. -- Banj e  b oi   04:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have sources to determine notablity, please provide them, or your !vote should be disregarded. Others have been unable to find them so please share! Drawn Some (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The closer should add weight to !votes per our guidelines and nothing states I have to prove anything to express my opinions. With such logic the burden would be on you to prove that no sources exist which is illogical and certainly untrue. I feel you're motivated by other issues than your interest in this content but your vehemance in defending your delete position speaks for itself. If I have time I'll look to variations on her name to find possible sourcing but no, it's not my job to fix the article. Thank you however for your keen interest in discussing the merits of my opinion. -- Banj e  b oi   05:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith, but, the motivation appears to be to retaliate against me for voting against Drawn in the bilateral articles. He is following my edits and bringing multiples articles to AFD that I have worked on or created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The obituaries are enough sourcing. The bit from the Handbook of Denominations in the United States also establishes the significance/importance of the subject.  I also trust the judgment of the creator and primary author of this article.  GRBerry 13:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes the article is brief as is, but like the lesser sovereigns of a notable dynasty, Arlene is noteworthy. There is more to tell about her.  Sourcing more is difficult, but we'll find more. Buz lightning (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This is a small (only 6 churches), fringe (formerly associated with the Klan) denomination and my opinion is that most of the coverage is because the media likes to report on the strange, but my gut feeling isn't relevant here, the fact that coverage is there is relevant. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are RS to show notability.  Springnuts (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable to me. Can't they get a better photograph? Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that you want to see her any more clearly? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2009 (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.