Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevan

Nevan

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Nevan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find any evidence for this saint's existence. Fails WP:NNAME as well, and virtually all sources I can find are unreliable databases and "baby name" websites. I would accept redirecting Nevan Krogan as an alternative to deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. After my own WP:BEFORE efforts here, I am unsure what to propose. As it stands, I don't support outright deletion. While the claimed Irish "saint" likely doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV (barely being name-checked in a few historical sources), it seems to me that this article is primary about the person name. Rather than a specific person of that name. And so, as noted by the nom, WP:APONOTE (rather than WP:NBIO) is what applies. And, per the guidelines on articles about person names, "A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list [of >2 notable people with that name]". As, to my mind, this article is primarily about the name, and is relatively reasonably sourced, I wonder whether the criteria is met. As it's not "cut and dried" either way, in a grey-area, I'd be minded to lean towards "keep"... Guliolopez (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, I know WP:APONOTE applies. That's part of my reasoning. May be notable, yes, but usually when they have WP:SIGCOV or some other kind of significance, such as historical. Most of the sources listed are WP:ROUTINE. I guess I'm not feeling as strongly as I did when I nominated it, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, expand, and improve as necessary rather than delete. It is sourced and there are more than likely additional published sources. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Reply Brought to you by the editor that doesn't care about notability criteria. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as the article has been improved and expanded since nomination with the use of reliable sources references so it is now an acceptable article about the name, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• keep and expand - Brevity is not a reason for deletion. Its Islamic use will have a different origin and that section needs expansion. Whether the original person was a saint is irrelevant, and anyway many locally acknowledged early saints are not officially recognised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)