Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Eldredge

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Eldredge

[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)

Article contains no WP:RS and is written in a purely self-promotional tone indicating WP:PUFF and using WP as a form of WP:PROMO. Subject of this article does not meet standards of WP:N or WP:BLP. Volcom95 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, California, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR point 3 for Wild at Heart, plenty of other RS coverage on him in other contexts: [1], [2], [3], [4] for starters, and there appears to be a lot more out there beyond this; see my contributions to other AfD on his books. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. The article is pretty poor, but deletion is not cleanup. St Anselm (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with both comments above. The article is not well done, but there are RS citations and the article does appear to meet the notability guidelines. I vote to keep, but the article should be cleaned up and use a more neutral tone. Go4thProsper (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I have removed the vast majority of the article as it was improperly sourced and not very encyclopaedic. But the subject meets GNG, with the sources provided above. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2022 (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.