Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grady Louis McMurtry


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Grady Louis McMurtry
The article has been created in December 2004, and has been tagged completely unsourced ever since October 2009 Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: User:E.M.Gregory is quite right to state that the length of time that an article has been unreferenced - or even tagged as unreferenced - should never be the sole grounds for an AfD. We have far more articles than active editors - it is quite possible for an article to remain effectively unsourced for a decade or more just because no editor with sufficient interest in the subject has ever looked at the article. Having said that, if an article has been unreferenced for a long period, it frequently is because sourcing has proved difficult - either there are no sources at all or, as in this case, there are plenty of potential sources but, at least at first glance, the vast majority look unlikely to be regarded as reliable by Wikipedia consensus. If so, the nominator should be saying so and not just leave other editors to infer the actual valid reason for the nomination. In this case, the subject looks rather more likely to be notable than a number of related subjects with (not necessarily reliably) sourced articles - however, I am not interested enough in the area to have the expertise to sift out the reliable from the unreliable sources quickly or dedication to do this slowly. PWilkinson (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He is real, here's a simple search on his name in books .E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been unreferenced now for more than 11 years and 1 month. Moreover, the article has been tagged unreferenced for more than 6 years and 3 months.
 * According to WP:AFDFORMAT: "... you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at WP:RSL, and then adding the rescue list template to the AfD discussion by posting to the discussion thread."
 * I think enough time has passed already, and the measures to save the article are clearly stated by WP:AFDFORMAT. Sometimes the sources found by a Google search can be considered WP:RS, sometimes they do not. That's the normal flow of an editorial process. If the status of the article will improve, this AfD is unnecessary, but meanwhile we can see that in more than 11 years nobody has provided sources that meet our criteria. The article was first introduced in 2008, and nowadays an unreferenced article like this would never pass. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My point precisely.  probable Keep Thank you PWilkinson, for flagging me. I did a quick search on subject. It was enough to persuade me that there is a high probability of notability.  On the other hand, my time in limited, ad my knowledge of fraternal organizations with an interest in the occult is... limited.  What i do strongly urge is that the article not be deleted before someone a serious attempt at sourcing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed from probable to Keep because Cullen328's's sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep A search for reliable sources shows that the topic is notable, and I have added two book sources to the article. When a topic is notable, it is better to make the effort to improve the article, instead of making the effort to delete the article. The article still needs work. I invite other editors to help. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:58, 15 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.