Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Bolz-Weber (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Nadia Bolz-Weber
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has previously been deleted under A7 by User:GiantSnowman and then restored on Request. Having queried the level of sourcing with him this was taken to AFD Here and closed as delete on 11 October 2013. Article was recreated on 5 November using only one source, another user added two further sources onto the one already reliable one discussed at last AFD. Speedy was declined so i am bringing back to AFD as per admin and talk page. It is my view that the subject does not have enough RELIABLE sources, there are only around three that would contribute to notability, to establish that the individual has both long-standing notability to meet GNG which should be a high threshold when considering a subject who is fairly unknown and is a BLP. I would also say that the sources cover mostly one event and do not show longevity of notability. Blethering  Scot  16:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I now agree that there has been enough reliable sources presented to match WP:GNG. Its still minimal in my view as littered with blog posts in addition to four or five strong articles although they still all cover a small period of time not longstanding. Article should be kept but as i cant withdraw due to comments i will not that should be *Kept and worked on a lot however. Also WP:BLP must be observed as there was until i tidied it out a few terms we cant really use unless explicitly sourced. Blethering  Scot  22:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * it now has 3 reliable sources. BS, why do you persist in deleting On Being which is a reliable source? what part of GNG don't you understand? Duckduckgo (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully understand WP:GNG I'm afraid you seem to not. Reliable sources do not mean they meet GNG. Strength of source, volume of sources, three or four is still very low for a notable person and being for more than one event which is included in that policy. Also longstanding notability is important for someone that is relatively unknown and is a WP:BLP. And the source which is actually a blog post onbeing.org/blog which may not be subject to the same editorial control as the main site therefore its questionable. Its also unnecessary as preaching at a festival is a non notable event. Blethering  Scot  18:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (caveat: I declined the G4 speedy deletion due to the presence of new sources since the last discussion.) The current version of the article references extensive write-ups in four publications which all meet the criteria for reliable sources. They clearly cover more than one event (you've got coverage of her theology, her publications, her former careers as a comedian and weightlifter, her tattoos, her Red Rock Ampitheatre sermon and more), and they're all fairly in-depth. You've therefore got significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources - that's the textbook definition of notability. I won't deny that the page needs a lot of expansion, but deletion? Not at all. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems plenty notable to me. Here are articles from a CNN newsblog, a Washington Post newsblog, The Denver Post, etc. It seems to me that she's rapidly gaining notability and media attention, and having a best-selling book will only compound that interest. As a polarizing figure, she's bound to attract controversy. Unfortunately, I'm not well versed in where to find such things, but I'm confident that others can find something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain bearing in mind WP:BLP and the person in question at this time is not overly notable, how four sources which in my view are not detailed enough, nor about multiple events meets the threshold of WP:GNG. is there enough to suggest long term notability, not seeing it. Also the article was recreated a very short time after AFD, by a closely linked editor to the first creator. The last parts not important but the first parts certainly are. In this state and notability we are badly letting a very lesser known subject down and as a BLP we should not be. Yes we could scrape past and see in 6 months to a year how notable person is and then bring back to AFD, but we should have given enough time between the last AFD and this one to actually prove the notability outright. Blethering  Scot  17:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just four sources, though. I was able to easily find several more, which I linked above.  They may not be detailed enough for you, but they're detailed enough for me.  We're talking about multiple printed pages here, all dedicated to a single person.  Not a passing mention, not a single paragraph, and not just a puff piece about a local hero.  Long, in-depth articles.  There's no rule that people can't recreate articles, as long as they are significantly improved.  This one seems to have no issue establishing notability, and I don't think we need to wait 6 months.  This article passes the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC quite easily.  If someone has this many newspaper articles written about them, they're notable enough for a Start-class Wikipedia article, and locating a few more will make C-class a cinch.  Not every article has to be a Featured article with hundreds of sources and a bibliography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No they don't, and i certainly don't see this ever becoming much. CNN and Washington Post are blog posts and looking at them I'm not convinced that they have the same editorial restraints to make them reliable, there pretty dicey one links to where you can buy the tshirt, which is a blocked link if you to try and add that to show you here. So yes four sources. Blethering  Scot  20:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They both pass WP:NEWSBLOG. They are reliable sources, whether you like them or not.  The CNN newsblog even has a banner that says it has passed the CNN editorial review process, and it is written by a scholar (Sarah Sentilles) on the subject.  The Washington Post article is written by a professional journalist.  I was going to add them to the article, but now it seems likely that it would just be reverted, and I'm completely uninterested in an edit war or dragging you to some drama board so that I can get the edits upheld.  Seriously, it doesn't matter if an article links to cafepress.  Of all the ridiculous reasons to reject a reliable source, that's about the worst one that I've ever seen.  She's also been featured on the NPR-affiliated radio program On Being here.  It's not that difficult to find reliable sources offering significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for all the same reasons as the last AfD. Of the "new sources," two (the UK Daily Mail tabloid, and a press release for her book) are not WP:RS. The Washington Post article doesn't seem to establish notability either. -- 101.119.14.212 (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I added a lot of new sources. Total of 5 book reviews (per WP:AUTHOR #3 "multiple reviews") + 7 GNG sources. In addition a couple of the sources make direct assertions of notability. I'll quote them if requested, they should be quoted in the article anyway. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive removed one as I've already said its a blog and very questionable. In addition the book reviews don't add anything and are ott. The others are of varying levels i still believe only 4 are reliable enough to be put towards GNG. However I will concede it looks a hell of a lot stronger and I'm less concerned about the BLP aspects, but i hope that you will be willing to actually expand the article using those sources other wise you can remove a fair whack of them as an article thats only a couple of sentences long doesn't need a source every few words and if it can be expanded which you and others seem to think you would be far better doing it. Blethering  Scot  21:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Re: source at CNN According to WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." CNN is clearly under editorial control. Sarah Sentilles is a published author on religious topics (by Harpers Publishing), and has published other journalism articles in other reliable sources. If this went to RS/N it would almost certainly pass as reliable.
 * 2 There is nothing wrong with the book reviews. They are reliable sources and according to WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews counts towards notability.
 * 3 Adding the sources is one first step. I hope someone uses them to expand the article. There is no time limit and this is a community project we all pitch in different ways as time and interests allow. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no need for the reply. I agree re most but that CNN post contains links we actually block. Im fully aware of the blog and reliable sources but as it says must have been subject to the outlet's full editorial control. I don't believe that to be the case here. It also adds nothing that the others don't so we don't need to use it. Im not questioning the book reports reliability but there isn't much in any of them to add to notability but there is nothing wrong with, that but simply other sources cover the same. Also i never mentioned time limits but said it needs done and it does. Blethering  Scot  22:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm satisfied with the sources presented by NinjaRobotPirate. Those are enough to establish notability for me.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 22:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable author, as indicated by the reviews. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 12 November 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.