Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr. (2nd nomination)

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. Discussion is a bit light on policy, but consensus is to keep.--Kubigula (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr.

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

Finley is manifestly not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. The article was only "kept" the first time around because of WP:POINT concerns. Eugene (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that said concerns still apply. ―AoV² 23:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I had nothing to do with the first nomination. I'm nominating this article for deletion because Finley would never, not in a million years, be given his own article in a print encyclopedia with his current attainments. Eugene (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With all those external links embedded in the text, this looks like somebody's personal web page masquerading as an article. If Mr. Finley has a personal bio on his web site, that's where this article should appear. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This source goes into some depth, this is a shorter profile and here we have a Christian author referring to Finley as one of the US's most noted atheists. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The third source you mention, the one that describes him asone of America's "most noted atheists" is a self-published book written by an unknown. I don't think it should have any bearing on this discussion. The newspaper article is better, but limitless numbers of people have been the subject of local newspaper articles--including me. It looks like the only serious source is a blurb in African American Religious Cultures; but can one meaningful source justify inclusion in Wikipedia? Think of the flood gates that would open for minor Christian religious figures and non-notable academics. Eugene (talk) 14:12, 2 April 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) 00:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that no one seems to care enough about this article to defend it should count against its notability. Eugene (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seeming to care is a function of the interests of the handful of Wikipedia editors who monitor AfD discussions, which has nothing to do with notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to clear the bar for notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Marginal, but the sources do show a reasonable level of coverage which appears to meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 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.