Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Bolz-Weber


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Nadia Bolz-Weber

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources within article fail to establish notability. I have carried out checks to establish notability and whilst there are some sources out there most are blogs and the reliable sources available in my view aren't enough to meet GNG. Article was previously speedy deleted under CSD A7 but restored on request. Feel a community discussion is appropriate on whether this individual fully meets our notability guidelines. Blethering  Scot  15:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: she's written a couple of books, like Salvation on the Small Screen?: 24 Hours of Christian Television and Pastrix: The Cranky, Beautiful Faith of a Sinner & Saint. I'm not sure if that's enough -- maybe someone could check library holdings for those? -- 101.119.15.146 (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Unless the books have had a very wide circulation, I do not think she can possibly be notable. We have no article on her church; she was only ordained 5 years ago.  NOtable one day, perhaps, but not yet.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * keep, meets GNG 2 reliable sources Denver Post, and On Being. Duckduckgo (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tlwo sources one questionable does not show enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. It simply isn't extensive coverage nor does it appear extensive coverage in reliable sources is available to prove long term notability. She isn't notable even having written two books as they aren't notable. Being a minister of a presumed non notable church (we don't have article) doesn't make you automatically notable. As you created the article can you explain how she meets GNG because the two sources don't show that.  Blethering   Scot  21:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Denver Post is a notable, reliable source;
 * On Being is a notable, reliable source;
 * they both had extensive pieces on the pastor herself, not her church, so they clearly establish her notablilty. the burden of proof is not upon the article creator, rather the community has established consensus standards that it can uphold. it's unclear to me what your understanding of GNG is. merely stating non-notablilty does not make it so. go to the Category:Ordained Christian women, several of them do not meet your criteria: Linda L. Booth; Alison Cheek, or scottish divines, Norman Shanks, etc. let the mass deletions begin. Duckduckgo (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. -- 101.119.15.50 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Her books don't seem to be widely sold. The Denver Post article is good (though such an interview in the local newspaper doesn't establish notability), and there's also a reference in this book, but I'm not finding anything else. That's reflected in the fact that there isn't really much potential article content. She certainly seems to be an interesting person, but that's not the same as notable. -- 101.119.15.50 (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - probably WP:TOOSOON. One of the articles probably constitutes significant coverage but I'm not convinced about the reliability of the other. Couldn't find anything else usable. Stalwart 111  13:43, 8 October 2013 (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.