Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulaseer


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 08:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Paulaseer

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

No assertion that this person is world renowned (in third party sources). Google suggests there's only a limited amount of primary resources. DFS454 (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not asserted and my own searches have not come up with any reliable sources. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy G11 "He has incomprehensible Divine Power." I think that counts as promotional. Ray (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep Article has improved dramatically. Ray (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - a search on the full name turns up a few references; they are not from many underlying sources, but notability is certainly asserted, and I think there is a possibility of developing a sourced article if experienced editors help the (new, SPA) author. JohnCD (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is asserted, but assertions of notability are only a factor for speedy deletion. (They prevent it.)  This is AFD, where it is determined whether a subject really is notable, based upon the depths and provenances of sources, not based upon claims and assertions.  Whilst I like you have no objection to a properly sourced article with verifiable content, we differ in that I think that there is zero content here to keep around in the meantime until that happens.  Wikipedia should not have this content indefinitely until someone gets around to writing a good stub. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Any biography that states that the subject has "incomprehensible Divine power" in its very first revision is not off to a good start. If this were a biography of a living person, it would be swiftly zapped for making extraordinary claims (only thinly veiled behind weasel words such as the "many Christians &hellip; some &hellip; a minority" phrasing) without any sources at all to back them up.  But the fact that this isn't a living person only means that our policies do not swiftly apply, not that they don't apply at all.  None of the extraordinary claims in the article, such as that this person was "incarnated" and then "ascended", are verifiable on their faces, and would be immediately challenged and removed by most people in the normal course of editing.  Taking out all of the contestable content pending sources would leave an article with zero content, however.  If this article is not completely rewritten (even as simply a good stub) based upon sources, therefore, it should be deleted.  There is not even a good stub here, at the moment. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Extraordinary claims require exraordinary sourcing. This article has zero sources and a severe POV. Edward321 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep based on Brianyoumans' work on finding sources and cleaning up the page. Edward321 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The page consists of little more than preaching; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete without prejudice. (In fact, I routinely speedily delete blatant proselytization under the spam criterion.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And the original author has restored the proselytizing content, which I have removed. In any case, I am changing my vote to abstain. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have just done a general cleanup, reducing the article to what seems to be biographical facts. There seem to be sources available on this guy (see this article in a scholarly book, for instance). He seems to be fairly notable. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a great clean-up, but he still seems like an obscure figure with very limited third-party sourcing, the scholarly article above not-withstanding. 7triton7 (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough sources found by a Google Books search, including books published by Eerdmans, Gollancz, Cambridge University Press etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 2 March 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.