Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Griffin (Christian Churches/Churches of Christ)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Even when !votes from potential

single-purpose accounts are disregarded, still no consensus exists. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

William A. Griffin (Christian Churches/Churches of Christ)

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined. No

WP:BLP. (assuming 'L'). sample search. One source (Elizabeth City Daily Advance) given, but that's hardly far up the ladder of reliable sources. tedder (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

You have a week, and the article can be
moved to a user's personal area to work on longer if necessary. tedder (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
this William A. Griffin is more notable than the one we already have a wikipage for. Shouldn't that count for something User:151.46.181.106 14:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. --RrburkeekrubrR 14:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It looks like everyone who has an opinion on this has voted. I would be suspicious of anyone who voted after this point (7 votes within about a day; none in the last two days). The current count is 5 KEEP, 1 Merge, and 1 Delete. It should also be noted that the one delete was by a user who seems to think the notability criteria for this article should be more stringent than it is for other articles. Not quite a consensus, but very strong to KEEP.
alan1701 10:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep in mind it's
single-purpose accounts that amount to "I like it" should simply be discarded from the consensus of this AFD. tedder (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Good point about the voting, Tedder. However, while not being the only criterion, voting should be considered. If it didn't matter, why would we bother to do it? The only single purpose account I see is 151.23.79.61. Taking that away and adding your vote would still make it 4-2-1 in favor of keeping. Then again, I don't think single purpose accounts can be dismissed just because of that. They have a voice and if they have a valid point, then they have a valid point. I also haven't seen any arguments that amount to simply "I like it."
alan1701 (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmm. All of the IPs are from the same ISP, all have only edited Griffin, MACU, and (sometimes) related orgs. In fact, two of them made their first edit EVER at this AFD; the third has only made four edits total. That's pretty suspicious, and the sort of behavior seen when someone requests other people to vote with them on an AFD. tedder (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the "strength of the arguments" and not who or how many people say it that matters, why do we care who makes the point? While there is agreement between the different "users," they each had a different reason for keeping the article. I also don't know why this article is being held to a higher standard than other biographical articles as one already pointed out (the less notable other William A. Griffin, for example). I find it odd that this one was singled out when there are many other related and less notable people already on wikipedia. User:alan1701|alan1701]] (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we should add information about early life and his influence on this sect of christianity. Page needs more info and should not be deleted. agree, head of a college is notable. as pointed out he was the president for two decades and made significant strides with the university.User:151.23.73.45 11:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)|151.23.73.45[reply]
With time running out, I want to summarize arguments to KEEP. I won't include all, but will try to include most. What makes this situation difficult is that that it's practically impossible to find a truly disinterested party. Even if someone isn't familiar with this specific situation, they will undoubtedly have a bias (in whatever direction that might be) with Christianity and religion in general. What really makes this person notable? The first thing we need to do is identify what criteria makes a University Head (usually President or Chancellor) notable. If we don't have specific guidelines to refer to, it comes down to just "I think he/she is/isn't."
I propose a two-part litmus test for University Heads: 1) The University or College is regionally accredited. 2) The individual is not serving in a short interim position. If those two items are met, the individual is inherently notable. Of course, someone who doesn't meet those two items might still be notable based on other conditions. In this case, the individual not only meets these two conditions, but exceeds them. What else makes him notable?
This individual has been in the position for 20 years -- a long period of time for such a position. His work has had a significant economic and religious impact on two states (North Carolina and Virginia) and a smaller impact on the rest of the region and country. His specific contributions have been significant to the institution itself. It is well documented that he led the University through its first regional accreditation -- a big deal! Even if you don't buy my criteria above, surely the person who led a University through its first regional accreditation would be notable. Additionally, under his direction the University significantly expanded its campus and academic programs. Again, more info making him notable and not just a placeholder. Although it isn't very well documented in this article, he is also instrumental in organizing the churches of the region (encompassing two states) -- and has been for decades. He is mentioned in many news stories (not just the ones from where the University is either).
In short, this individual far exceeds the criteria that would normally make someone notable. I haven't included everything here, but I think it's enough to make the point. Now let's go make the actual article better.
alan1701 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Alan1701, you keep using the term "notability". Per
WP:GNG. Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? tedder (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I think he easily meets that criteria. I’ve found a whole plethora of newspaper articles about him from North Carolina and Virginia (several from further away), going back several years. Not all of them are suitable for the article, of course. A few of the relevant ones have been included. It should also be noted that most of his newspaper coverage was probably from before they started saving them to internet files. I mean, you’re not going to get Natalie Holloway coverage if that’s what you’re asking for.
alan1701 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I count eight different third party sources… after just beginning work on the article.
alan1701 (talk) 17:46, 26 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_A._Griffin_(Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ)&oldid=1070012575"