Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevan

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevan

[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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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

Comment User:Bookworm857158367, I am sorry for the above comment, which an admin has warned me against. I got frustrated when I believed that efforts to improve the encyclopedia were being impeded, but that was a very immature comment and I should have thought through a logical response. I won't erase it if you don't want it erased. I believe you are trying to improve the encyclopedia and I appreciate a lot of what you do for the anthroponymy subjects, as your articles generally have high standards, but I also believe some of your opinions on notability are misguided. Though I don't expect either of our opinions to change anytime soon, so hopefully we can retain respectful dialogue in the future. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Reply I didn't claim brevity was a reason for deletion, but I guess it does have stronger sources than most other articles I nominated. I would still prefer that it gets deleted but I no longer feel too strongly about it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2024 (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.