Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sampson Sievers

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sampson Sievers[edit]

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

Sources do not support notability. 1292simon (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources listed as external links appear sufficient to me. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would be more than willing to !vote to keep an article about an objectively notable religious mystic. But the current version of the article reads, literally, like a hagiography; in its current state it isn't acceptable for the Wikipedia mainspace. I am finding it difficult to wade through the excessive detail and the accounts of miracles told as fact, in order to find the kind of objective content that would establish his notability. I'd like to see clearer identification of his influence on, and/or recognition by, significant elements of the Orthodox Church. --03:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep There are sources. The article being written in poor style is not reason to delete it, it is reason to imporve it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2014 (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.