Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Southern (evangelist)


 * 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    No Consensus. The discussion, and in particular most of the "Keep" votes, was of fairly low quality but overall I cannot find a consensus to delete. While pointing at a google search is neither recommended nor sufficient it is not simply ignorable if the search contains the sources that it is alleged too. Thus despite the wording of the comments I see a basic dispute about whether the sources that can be found via google news are sufficient for an article or not. That is a straightforward no consensus close. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Southern (evangelist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I cannot find sufficient RS independent coverage of this person to satisfy wp's notability requirements. Nor does he appear to satisfy wp:author. Others are welcome to seek indicia of notability. Tagged for lack of notability since 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There appears to be just enough GNews coverage to support an article, and I suspect there is significantly more coverage in older evangelical media that aren't accessible or indexed online. I absolutely have no idea os how to interpret the result that, just before 2PM today, my GNews Archives search on "Daniel Southern" reported precisely 666 hits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We disagree as to whether the GNews coverage is sufficient, which is fine. As to your difficulty interpreting your Gnews Archives search results, a look at the articles themselves indicates that they are largely fall positives -- such as articles that mention AFL Western Bulldogs player Daniel Southern, and that mention the tag line of liquor producer Brown-Forman Corp., which makes "Jack Daniel's, Southern Comfort", and other liquor and wine brands.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was the significance of the 666 figure that I was referring to, not hardly seriously, regarding an evangelist . . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ;) ... understood ... after I hit "save" and re-read our exchange, I was wondering whether I had missed your point ... A good one, given the nature of this fellow's life work. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep I searched GNews for "daniel southern" + Christian and got lots of reliable news stories. The article needs sourcing, not deletion.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather more focused searches than the ones linked in the nomination or that get (still at the time of writing) 666 results: . Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Simply saying there were g hits is not sufficient in an afd discussion.  Can you point us to substantial coverage in RSs?  Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. A google books search brings up references to his early career. Definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kthapelo (talk • contribs) 05:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Simply saying there were g hits is not sufficient in an afd discussion.  Can you point us to substantial coverage in RSs?  Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable independent content about specifically in regard to him. There has been no article improvement that asserts notability since it was nominated - The currect externals fail to even assert the minimal wikipedia notability levels. I suggest userfy to the user that says they got some results or delete and then redirect to Billy Graham Evangelistic Association because he worked on that and it seems his main claim to fame. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Off2's suggestions of deleting and either userfying or redirecting are thoughtful suggestions that make sense to me as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2011 (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.