This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nadia Bolz-Weber article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2013. The result of the discussion was delete.
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Nadia Bolz-Weber is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- it has 4 reliable sources: Washington Post, Denver Post, Daily Mail, On Being. why would anyone improve from a stub, if it's on BS's kill list. Duckduckgo (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should retract that last statement immediately, as you have no grounds for that statement. Whilst you not the article creator, who recreated what was essentially, still is, a copy of the original added a couple of new sources it still far off GNG and even then its essentially WP:one event that the notable sources cover. I fully intend to take this back to AFD if necessary for another community discussion.BletheringScot23:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Duckduckgo, you should probably tone that down a bit and I'm just going to boldly strike that comment for you. This was recreated by John Hajicek only a month after being deleted by community consensus. Yes, there was a view that more coverage might establish notability but individual editors making personal decisions about when that has occurred (as opposed to taking it to DRV for consideration) probably isn't the best idea. Ignoring consensus and simply declaring notability has been established is going to raise eyebrows. Would DRV permit recreation on the basis of new coverage? Yeah, quite possibly, but at this stage I would work on the basis that this is going to be taken back to AFD because that hasn't been properly established. Stalwart11102:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comment. i'm confident that a reasonable person reviewing BS's conduct will agree with me. take it to whatever tribunal you dare. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Nadia Bolz-Weber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This section is inappropriate and unnecessary. It violates numerous guidelines on what wikipedia is, and link farms, not news etc.. and it has many unreliable sources. It makes the article appear to be a COI case. Sources are included when they add to the body of the article in some was, integrated into the article, we don't list every source that mentions a topic. -- GreenC00:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
