Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Justin Wolfram


 * 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. Consensus is clear that reliable sources sufficiently establish his notability. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Donald Justin Wolfram

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Only references are a couple of one-line trivial mentions and obituaries. Drawn Some (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete hardly any third party coverage. . LibStar (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep references used show notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you missed the part about the references being trivial one-line mentions and obituaries. That doesn't meet our standards here at Wikipedia.  Please review WP:BIO and WP:RS.  Your !vote should be disregarded by the closing editor. Drawn Some (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You actually have to read the source material, not just look at the one line I quote in the reference. He has a full obituary in the Denver Post to attest to his notability. I know of no rule that excludes obituaries. If you do please quote it here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Leader of a religious denomination, whose death is covered in an obituary by a major metropolitan newspaper, in addition to covergae in other reliable and verifiable sources, all establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please show significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable references. Simply saying that such references exist is insufficient. You might as well say it's notable because the aliens from Pluto told you it is. Drawn Some (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The cited Denver Post article is an obituary &mdash; non-autobiographical (as obituaries, by their very natures, are), 477 words long, and directly about this subject rather than the "trivial one-line mention" within discussion of some other subject that you imply it to be. Uncle G (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, do you wish to go on record as saying that anyone who is dead is notable by way of their obituary being published? This is what you seem to be implying, but I notice you don't actually say you think this person is notable or that the article should be kept.  Drawn Some (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This obituary is written by a staff writer and not his relatives, so it is independent. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete All the references I see are from the http://www.belleview-college.org/ domain or passing mentions in books. I don't see any obituary in a "major metropolitan newspaper" (again, only the belleview links; I searched google web and google news trying to find the obit Alansohn is talking about, and couldn't find it, so if it does exist a direct link would be useful). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 04:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't read carefully enough. You had the direct link.  The WWW page that you allude to is "the obituary in a major metropolitan newspaper".  It is, purportedly, a copy of the obituary written by Virginia Culver and published in the 2009-08-23 edition of the Denver Post.  It does say this, quite clearly, at the very top of the page.  It hyperlinks to the original URL of the DP article, which although not directly available for free from the DP any more can still be located through archive services.  Look beyond URLs and pay attention to authors, titles, and publications. Uncle G (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Only hit by mainstream media is the obit in the Denver post and I dont think that's enough significant coverage to provide notability Corpx (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Obituaries are actually quite good references in general as they include overviews of a persons life much as we strive to do. Per WP:CSB it's logical that a minister who's not scandalous will have less than a pile of mainstream online sources - especially as most newspaper accounts are likely not eve available online as yet. I have little doubt other sourcing exists and would be more swayed if anyone was presenting evidence that anything here was false or misrepresenting this person. See also noms for * Arlene White Lawrence and Orland Albert Wolfram -- Banj e  b oi   04:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to just "have little doubt other sourcing exists." We need significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources to prove notability.  Also, please review WP:BIO and WP:RS.  Drawn Some (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your interest in deleting this content but I simply disagree and yes, I'm quite familiar with those policies and no, i don't have to prove anything to express my opinions. Your opinion seems to be that only deletion is appropriate here and my opinion does not coicide with yours. I believe other sources exist and you won't accept that they might unless they are in your face. Luckily neither of our opinions alone determines the fate here. Hopefully other sourcing will emerge so it's a moot issue. -- Banj e  b oi   05:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, you have no sources to back up your opinion to keep, so your opinion should be disregarded. Drawn Some (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to like to cite policies so please read WP:Civility including assuming good faith. My apologies for lack of interest in being baited into whatever point you seem to be making. -- Banj e  b oi   05:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While I don't like the way it is written at the moment, he was leader of a religious denomination for some time. Fuzbaby (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fuzbaby, you seem to be saying that anyone who has a position of leadership in any religious organization is automatically notable, even if they fail the general notability guidelines. Is this what you intend? Drawn Some (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The obituary is enough sourcing, though I'd be happier if it was from a city other than the one he lived in. 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)
 * GRBerry, you seem to be implying that anyone who dies and has an obituary published is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Is this what you are saying? Drawn Some (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not everyone. It depends on the country, as obituary practices vary between countries.  For the U.S., those practices also make an obituary outside the city of residence more significant than one in the city of residence.  (Given my understanding of practices in the United Kingdom, I believe a full length obituary in a major UK paper is in and of itself adequate evidence that we should have an article, as the UK practices are different from US practices.  I don't know the practices in other countries well enough to comment.) It depends on the obituary contents.  I am saying that in this case, there is enough sourcing and evidence of enough significance to keep the article.  Reading me to have implied a universal statement is almost always misreading me; I know better than to make universal statements as they are almost always wrong.  GRBerry 16:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with GRBerry's reasoning here. Drawn Some you seem oddly motivated to get this page deleted.  Fuzbaby (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Drawn Some has been wikistalking me and nominating articles I have been working on. I am assuming good faith, but most likely as retaliation for opposing his votes for deletions on the articles on bilateral relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect (to Pillar of Fire Church) but certainly not "delete," similarly to Articles for deletion/Arlene White Lawrence. Admin, feel free to interpret my vote as a "weak keep"--that is, I am convinced some notability exists. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He was the head of a religious denomination with a noteworthy and colorful past.  The article is very worthy of keeping and expanding.Buz lightning (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Denver Post obituary is enough to establish passing WP:NOTABILITY. This wasn't a a family-paid obituary of someone's grandpa, but an editorial decision by a very reliable secondary source to write an publish a biography.--Oakshade (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This is a small (only 6 churches), fringe (formerly associated with the Klan) denomination and I believe most of the coverage is because the media likes to report on the strange, but the coverage is there. And, BTW, I don't think obits are what gets people past notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is a bit like being dead.  You either are, or you are not.  He has sufficient WP:RS to pass the threshold.  He may not pass it by much, but he does pass it, so he is notable.  Springnuts (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming his position was leader of this sect (akin to the Moderator of some Calvinist churches) then keep -- if not then delete. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:18, 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.