Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. E. Cleveland

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. This is a bit early, but consensus is clear, and the nominator's comment below could be interpreted as withdraw. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E. E. Cleveland

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No indication of being notable. No external WP:SECONDARY coverage outwith the church. scope_creep^Talk 16:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked him up the only places that talk about him are Seventh-day Adventist websites. No notable newspapers talk about him and no notable magazines talk about him, this proves that he was never notable outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Catfurball (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found quite a lot about him, in general newspapers. It seems he was widely known. We don't require sources writing about him to be notable, they should be independent and reliable, like these.[1][2][3][4][5] Thincat (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)::[reply]

*:Delete. The coverage in independent sources seems to be obituaries, which do not confer notability (or else everyone with an obituary would be on wikipedia). Stopasianhate (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thincat: That seems to be two obituaries you have found there. Your saying these are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV? scope_creep^Talk

Well, the first two references are one obituary extending over two pages. Editorially written obituaries, used with care, are a good source of biographical information. The other three references were published decades before he died and are not obituaries. They are all significant and independent. Less significant articles I didn't include. Thincat (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with obituaries, as opposed to death notices that are paid for? Obituaries are among the best sources in newspapers, because they give a general overview of a person's life rather than write about an individual event. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because systemic bias. You expect white/mainstream newspapers in the American South to write about a black evangelist for a suspect denomination (SDA has endured a LOT of prejudice over the years). I'm seeing what's been written about his life retrospectively as being a summation of all the articles that apparently should have been written about him during his lifetime, but weren't. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I expect is evidence that the person is notable and passes WP:SIGCOV. Not a position you've taken that completely ignores policy around notability with some nebulous argument that can neither be proved nor disaproved and where none of us has the guidance nor the capability nor the tools to prove it either way. Hard evidence per WP:THREE is the general route to proving notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know he was black but I would still hard evidence that he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that is so it seems that you did not read the references I provided. So neither will you have learned he was the first Black leader to integrate the church's hierarchy (I think that means he had white associates – but I am not religious so I may not understand properly), and his preaching attracted many denominations worldwide with large, enthusiastic congregations. I found it interesting to read about him and I'm sorry you didn't have time to do the same. Thincat (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday was a busy day for me and I was working on a lot of different articles. I did read the article references you presented above but it didn't register that he was black, truly. I did ask you if you thought he was notable and you seemd sure. I think with five news reports that are secondary coverage is a pass for WP:SIGCOV. I would close it now, if not for the delete !vote. One more keep and its closed. scope_creep^Talk 15:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (it deserved more than a ping!). Thincat (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thincat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- His body of publications and that his personal archive was considered important enough to be preserved both point to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as newspapers coverage from various time periods that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the point has been made through discussion that conensus has been reached that the man is notable. I think this can be closed. scope_creep^Talk 13:31, 21 March 2023 (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.