Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rev. Dr. David Rolfe


 * 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. --Core desat  06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rev. Dr. David Rolfe

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

nn person; first Google ref is WP; nothing about him in news or reference sources; only ref is apparently a personal blog; the page is very vague on details that would give any prominence to the subject patsw 00:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-WP Ghits are almost zero, no evidence of notability. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  00:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Crested Penguin 02:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Seems to be a personal blog of his life. Non-notable.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete. This article contains personally damaging material, material that requres careful adherence to our sourcing policies per WP:BLP. The necessary sources have to be there or the material has to be removed. Currently there is only one source. The source is called an on-line source, but there is no link enabling one to see it and I can't locate it using Google. Moreover, I have no way of knowing if this is an independent source, and even if it is, multiple independent sources are required and this requirement has to be adhered to per WP:BLP given the personally damaging nature of what is being claimed. Get rid of this thing immediately, and if sources are forthcoming, the issue can get addressed in deletion review. Best, --Shirahadasha 08:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Was bold and removed all the problematic material, not too much of the article is left. If I am wrong I can always be reverted. Best, --Shirahadasha 08:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Rolfe in Pastoral Psychology (I don't see how a single article shows WP:BIO significance.) patsw 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now that the source has been more clearly identified, it's clear that there was no source at all for the controversial material, and hence its removal was proper per WP:BLP. Agree the remaining material doesn't show notability. Accordingly, I've changed my vote (above) to regular delete. --Shirahadasha 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of any notability given. -- Infrogmation 16:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting research topic, I think, but otherwise not notable.  --Dennisthe2 17:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn. --Tone 17:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Fails notability and WP:BIO. Ronbo76 22:48, 19 March 2007 (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.