Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Wieland

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. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl Wieland

Carl Wieland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been on wikipedia for three years and contains three sources: two links to his website and one footnote, without a page number, from his book. If there is any proof of notablity from an independent source, it's not included. There is no demonstration of notability. We66er (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but improve. We66er (talk) is right that there is no demonstration of notability. But I think the lack is in the demonstration, not the notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LowKey (talk • contribs) 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Then add sources that prove notablility. We66er (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you mean here or in the article? LowKey (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • In either. I am asking you to support your claim "I think the lack is in the demonstration, not the notability" with sources. We66er (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral The two sources from the subject's own book don't establish his own notability. They are not WP:RS. However, there is this book he published which may or may not prove his notability as a creationist. Artene50 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: There are zero independent reliable references, therefore there is no case for this to be kept.--Lester 06:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable - the problem is simply that it is not asserted. He's a reasonably well known individual of at least two decades standing in the creationist field, would have been published in reliable sources (more than likely prior to the start of Factiva coverage in the mid 1990s though) and in the context of AIG/CMI is basically the No.1 in Australia. It should definitely be improved, but I don't know where to find the source materials for that. Orderinchaos 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment- If you can't prove he's notable then how do we know? We need independent sources and have none. If he's known from Creation Ministries International then this should be merged with it since his notablity is not independent of it.We66er (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Wieland gets solid mention in The Creationists for his role in the formation, and then breakup, of Answers in Genesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:57, 14 August 2008 (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.