Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. T. Powers

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A. T. Powers

A. T. Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Notability issues. Being a "leading figure" is not a strong enough claim. Sole source of references is a book written by the article's creator. Normally a COI can be edited around, but in this case, you wouldn't have anything left and the individual still wouldn't pass WP:V or WP:N. Definitely WP:OR since the only source is the creator. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep (Author's comment): He was president of the American Baptist Association from 1957-1959; that establishes "notability." Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have a solid 3rd party source to demonstrate that, I would be happy to withdraw based on that singular claim. The problem is that I was not able to find anything (outside your book or 1st party) that demonstrates that. If true, surely some major paper or organization that passes WP:RS would have something. I'm very concerned that several articles only have your book as the sole source. While that would be fine for some secondary sourcing, I'm confident it shouldn't be used as the sole or primary source of demonstrating or verifying notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment If you would have told me, I would done this a bit earlier. See below.

• Tentative keep -- president of ABA would appear to demonstrate notability, but I'm really not inclined to dig through all the Austin Powers hits to find sourcing for this gentleman. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The issue at hand is that no verifiable sources can be found. The only source for the entire article is a book that itself is not notable (per WP:BOOK) and would not be qualified as a reliable source. This isn't an issue of insufficient verification, it is an issue of ZERO verification for biographical article. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete article, merge relevant details (if any) to American Baptist Association. Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and lacks RS. No sources for "Austin Toliver Powers" in google books, google scholar, or google news archive. The only "A. T. Powers" in google scholar are unrelated scientists who appear to be living. The two books (monographs) about him was published by Bogard Press, which was/is part of his organization. If this person was notable there should be sources, but there aren't. The bulk of the article is made up from a local history publication authored by the creator of the article. Simply put, delete per article's failure to "pass WP:V or WP:N." HHaeyyn89 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Your search skills are really subpar, maybe an adult education class would help a little. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Note that per our licensing, what you're really probably asking for is that the article be merged, left as a redirect, with the history kept for attribution purposes. We can't delete one article and then reuse the content in another article without significant attribution hoops. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. President of an association of 2,000 churches seems notable enough to me. And I do wish that people would stop quoting internet searches to prove why someone who was prominent in the 1950s isn't notable! Just have a quick think about why that might not be very useful! The fact he existed is verifiable. His notability is clear. Which guidelines or policies does this article not meet? Sadly the verifiability policy is frequently misunderstood: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation [italics mine]. Not every single item in the article, as some people seem to believe. Which material in this article is controversial? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR A link was added, http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617FA385C127A93C5AB178DD85F438585F9, that establishes notability. Unfortunately, the link is behind a paywall that requires $3.95 to verify. I take the addition by Billy Hathorn in good faith as accurate, and while difficult to verify, still passes WP:V because it IS available to verify. As for notability, being President of the American Baptist Association would qualify as notable by any reasonable measure, so I withdraw the nomination, and ask an admin to close as speedy keep at their earliest convenience. No other !votes needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You can't WP:SPEEDYKEEP an article while there are outstanding delete !votes -- a nominator's withdrawal does not obviate the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nom still withdraw You are correct, however, it still should be closed without prejudice (someone else can AFD if they choose) as a nominator withdrawal, per WP:AFD. I had forgotten someone did say delete, so yes, it can't be speedy kept, only closed as withdrawn. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

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.