Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Ebner

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 keep. John254 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Ebner

Christina Ebner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nun that fails WP:NN. Additionally, no references cited except the copy-paste origin of the article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep The article is skimpy, but there does appear to be a degree of notability. Is there another article that this could be merged into?--Jeff Johnston (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Google search turns up next to nothing aside from hits on various Catholic websites, which aren't exactly unbiased sources of information. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep gets quite a few Google scholar hits. RMHED (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it incorporates text from an older public domain encyclopedia, then to delete this would contravene the aims of the WikiProject Missing Articles (WP:MISSING) which aims to have Wikipedia articles for every article in every other encyclopedia. The Google Scholar hits look promising. On top of all that, to be remembered from before the Middle Ages is a sign that you're notable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source. Judging someone from the fourteenth century on google hits is slightly strange, discounting catholic sources about a nun because they 'arent' exactly unbiased' is very strange indeed. Someone remembered after seven hundred years for something she's written has proven her worthiness in my opinion. Nick mallory (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only on the grounds that she is the author of a historical work. As a general rule, the Catholic Encyclopedia is NOT a good source because, as it happens, it isn't exactly unbiased, but in this case that's not important. (Incidentally, I've suffered an affliction which appears three times a year for much longer than the ten years she did. That's the problem with the common cold.)Emeraude (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment. Should we stop using sources by scientists about science? After all, there's a definite COI issue there ... --Paularblaster (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per h i s reasoning above. --Lockley (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2008 (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.