 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 July 20. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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; there is no point keeping this open any longer, since it's well past the "more heat than light" stage. I do have a degree of sympathy with the delete arguments, but I consider the primary argument around the definition of "independent source" to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what we mean by "independent of the article subject". The sources aren't directly connected to the article subject but to an organisation of which he's a part, and that degree of connection isn't sufficient to discount the sources, any more than we would discount the Journal of the American Statistical Association or The Spectator as sources for biographies because most of the people mentioned will be connected to the ASA or the Conservative Party. On discounting those delete arguments made on this basis, it's clear that there's no consensus for deletion here. Also, Wikipedia's practice has always been that regardless of the neutrality of sources, if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability (most articles on Christian saints are sourced entirely to Christian sources; good luck getting Saint Mirin and the like deleted). Thus, while the numbers may tilt towards deletion, in terms of (definitely) Wikipedia custom and practice and (arguably) Wikipedia policy, those supporting keep have the stronger arguments, and the only reasonable closures for this are either "keep" or "no consensus"; I'm going with the latter as although the result is the same, it probably more accurately reflects the balance of the discussion. I'd also add that the conduct of some parties in this discussion, particularly the nominator, has been absolutely atrocious, and when this goes to the almost inevitable DRV I strongly recommend the semicoherent ranting and superfluous bolding be toned down considerably. ‑ Iridescent 10:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- (adding) I do have some sympathy with User:Herostratus's request for a relist, but the best way to do this is via either DRV or a fresh AFD listing. This AFD debate is a toxic brew of people on both sides shouting at each other, and keeping it open is serving no useful purpose. ‑ Iridescent 10:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)