Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negiel Bigpond

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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negiel Bigpond[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable evangelist, no reliable sources, no real claims of notability. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources listed at Google news seem to me sufficient to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And which sources would those be? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those listed here, which seem to be sufficient to establish notability as per WP:BIO. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean those sources which say that he exists? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a few articles at Google News but they are extremely local - the Florence, Alabama, "Times Daily" and the Newton, Mass, "Sun" were the best I could find. Doesn't add up to notability in my book. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same as with MelanieN, no major coverage. Derild 49 21 ☼ 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [1] shows notability per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria; As they are RS, I'm willing to accept local newspapers for this purpose in the absence of some special situation which requires an exception to the notability guideline for BLP reasons -- for instance, we should not bring local coverage of embarrassing events, minor violations of laws, etc, to an international audience. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't "got mentioned a few times in the local newspaper," or, God knows, every longtime resident of a small town with a newspaper would qualify. Notability is substantial coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. We have casual mentions of his presence in 2 in local news sources, and 2 human interest feature articles in a local paper, and one article behind a paywall where his role I cannot discern. That is the sum total of our coverage. I cannot regard this level of coverage as sufficiently substantial for notability. Ray^Talk 04:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.