Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David W. Virtue


 * 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. Secret account 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

David W. Virtue

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject is non-notable operator of a non-notable Anglican web forum. The creation of the article was the only contribution of Ptay1 fishhead64 (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. Xdenizen (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable outside of a fringe group of ultraconservative Anglicans. Lankiveil (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete, this article is non notable, and should not have an article of it's own. Does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Polarbear97 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep. Virtue is, unfortuately, notorious bacause of the volume (in both senses) of his commentary on current events in the controversies swirling around the Anglican Communion. As a 'liberal' Anglican I wish he'd go away, but he won't. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, given that Virtue is of importance in the current Anglican war. Perhaps he should be replaced by an article on his website. However, given that the nominator is a Anglican priest in North America, it's impossible for me to believe that this nomination is in good faith, since I cannot believe such a cleric is unaware of Virtue or his influence within the matter. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that you are incapable of believing my good faith in the matter, especially since I have been a contributor to improving and extending the article in question. I was prompted to nominate it based on the banner applied to it concerning notability, and the realisation that most Anglicans with whom I raise Virtue's name have no idea who he is. fishhead64 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that using "most Anglicans" as a test for, well, much of the material on Anglicanism is a useful test. And I suspect that a substantial proportion of those who are trying to follow this particular issue are aware of David Virtue and his role in the matter. I apologize for the phrase "good faith", but it does seem strange to me that Virtue should be put up for deletion by someone who is surely aware of him. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I had never heard of him before but several blogs have mentioned him in passing. I doubt he is notable per Notability (people). Still his article is kind of interesting. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 15:20, 14 January 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.