Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulf Zendik (2nd nomination)
From 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Wulf Zendik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An orphan biographical article with no reliable sources confirming notability. Reliability is especially needed here because the subject is tied into a controversial organization. Without it we cannot maintain this article. Shii (tock) 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks independant sources needed to indicate notability. Edward321 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per reasons given by Edward321
- Keep. Clearly a nutter, but a notable enough nutter for our criteria (if you actually click on the google news link given in the AfD template). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That link gives 0 results for me. Shii (tock) 06:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too this morning. Last night it gave half a dozen different reputable newspapers. Odd indeed. Here: these are the results it was giving last night. --Paularblaster (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but there's not enough biographical information in these to allow for an unbiased article on such a controversial subject. Shii (tock) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too this morning. Last night it gave half a dozen different reputable newspapers. Odd indeed. Here: these are the results it was giving last night. --Paularblaster (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That link gives 0 results for me. Shii (tock) 06:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not appear to be notable. Can we please go without referring to people as a "nutter"? That seems highly inappropriate, not to mention against the spirit of this website. JBsupreme (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do my best, but if it moves like a duck .... --Paularblaster (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More to the point, sporadic coverage over more than 20 years in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Austin American-Statesman, and the Appalachian Journal gives every appearance of notability, so could you please explain what you mean by "does not appear to be notable"? --Paularblaster (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Paular is correct, there are a fair amount of sources out there about this gentleman.[1]. I added the 2006 Washington Post piece to the article.--Milowent (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep, the article needs a significant bit of work to raise it to quality of standards, however, there is sufficient news articles out there from reliable sources, to be able to have the subject of the article to meet the minimum requirements imposed by WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (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.