Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Lee (Oregon missionary)


 * 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Lee (Oregon missionary)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article was created in 2020 and only has a handful of edits, with the last being in 2021. The subject doesn't seem to warrant their own page after a Google search and the article only contains a single paragraph with no references. -- Zoo (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity,  and Oregon. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 01:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: The article lacks the inline citations it should have, but a brief examination of the sources provided in the bibliography demonstrates significant coverage in two reliable sources. Methodist missionaries were intimately involved in the early settlement of the Oregon Territory (well, the non-Native American settlement) and I can confidently say that we could find even more on Daniel Lee (and Jason Lee) in the Oregon Historical Quarterly and related resources. That said, since the article at present lacks inline citations and the sources are somewhat dated, I'm going with "weak keep". ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the significant coverage in the two reliable sources in the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject qualifies under WP:GNG as notable, via WP:SIGCOV in secondary independent WP:RS. WP:NOTABILITY and GNG are also satisfied in the form of significant coverage demonstrating WP:IMPACT under the relevant guidelines. Since the SIGCOV threshold is met, there can’t be any claim that coverage is WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL, since it is by definition significant and implies WP:IMPACT sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG policy for inclusion. The available sources demonstrate the subject’s notability, effectively removing the WP:NOTABILITY premise as a valid basis for deletion. Deletion could be considered if the subject didn’t meet WP:GNG, WP:RS WP:SIGCOV, or was limited to WP:TRIVIAL/WP:ROUTINE coverage weakening the claim to notability. However, since these conditions are met, the appropriate conclusion is that the subject is notable and indeed warrants a stand alone article under WP:GNG notability guidelines. The case for keeping is significantly strengthened by the fact that the subject meets GNG via significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, thus establishing a claim to notability enhanced by WP:IMPACT. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2023 (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.