Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buckner Fanning


 * 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 SNOW keep and I'm not certain if the next few days closer to a week would make any considerable differences (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  06:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Buckner Fanning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Obituaries are not reliable sources - that is to say, they aren't fact checked like a typical article. This person apparently had no notability before his death. This article didn't appear until after his death. Most significantly: notability appears to be local with no expanded coverage. Rklawton (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of the six sources on the page, only one is an obit. Texas Monthly is not local; did you need national sources? Here's a link to a reprint of a Newsweek article. This is a person who was mainly notable nationally in the 50/60's during the televangelist craze. I'm sure other sources can be found, but this easily meets the basic criteria for notability.  Kuru   (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are more than enough sources here to show notability. Yes, this person died. Were they notable before then? Maybe not at least according to our standards. But they are certainly notable now, and that isn't temporary. Keep, since WP:BIO, WP:GNG are all met. The article is well sourced, not an advertisement, and etc... - No reason this should be deleted just because he happened to die. --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. A variety of sources and it seems likely that more can be found. Comment: "Obituaries are not reliable sources - that is to say, they aren't fact checked like a typical article." There are different kinds of obituaries. Paid newspaper obituaries are advertisements and generally not reliable sources or indicative of notability, but editorial obituaries (in newspapers and in other media) are excellent evidence of notability. In fact, many articles have been kept on the basis of national newspaper obituaries alone.--Jahaza (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Plenty of articles don't get started here until someone dies. Edwardx (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination is wrong-headed. The nominator should familiarise themselves with our policies. Subject meets GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2016 (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.