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.
Fails
WP:GNG,
WP:NBIO etc. a search for sources came up with a confusing mix of others with the same name and unreliable sources, what comes up for this Felix Neff is a mix of christian sites promoting this guy (with a brief paragraph not useable for any info) and mirrors which use the encyclopedia britannica entry seen as the only source on Wiki. An ED entry is not enough to satisfy notability.
Lavalizard101 (
talk)
13:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong keep: An Encyclopedia Britannica entry is, broadly, usually enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. Neff also
gets an entry in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, which is generally considered reliable for biographies. Neff's memoirs and musings are considered indicative of early 19th-century Continental Protestant thought, such as in
this article. Neff, interestingly, seems to have had some contemporary influence on popular imagery of the Alps (see
this article), but perhaps a bit more is needed to pull on that thread. In any case, he’s notable and we have the sources needed to cover him. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
15:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep the source linked by Pbritti lists several dead tree books (admittedly some from the 19th century) with his name in the title. Enough for a GNG pass, and per
WP:NEXIST they don't have to be referenced in the article to count towards notability.
Jclemens (
talk)
20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I can readily believe that the article needs expanding, rather than deleting. However, it definitely needs some attention from someone familiar with sourcing and how we write - I'm guessing that it is a copy/paste from an old copyright-expired entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's written in an archaic, hagiographical style.
GirthSummit (blether)18:57, 24 July 2023 (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.
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.
Fails
WP:GNG,
WP:NBIO etc. a search for sources came up with a confusing mix of others with the same name and unreliable sources, what comes up for this Felix Neff is a mix of christian sites promoting this guy (with a brief paragraph not useable for any info) and mirrors which use the encyclopedia britannica entry seen as the only source on Wiki. An ED entry is not enough to satisfy notability.
Lavalizard101 (
talk)
13:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong keep: An Encyclopedia Britannica entry is, broadly, usually enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. Neff also
gets an entry in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, which is generally considered reliable for biographies. Neff's memoirs and musings are considered indicative of early 19th-century Continental Protestant thought, such as in
this article. Neff, interestingly, seems to have had some contemporary influence on popular imagery of the Alps (see
this article), but perhaps a bit more is needed to pull on that thread. In any case, he’s notable and we have the sources needed to cover him. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
15:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep the source linked by Pbritti lists several dead tree books (admittedly some from the 19th century) with his name in the title. Enough for a GNG pass, and per
WP:NEXIST they don't have to be referenced in the article to count towards notability.
Jclemens (
talk)
20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I can readily believe that the article needs expanding, rather than deleting. However, it definitely needs some attention from someone familiar with sourcing and how we write - I'm guessing that it is a copy/paste from an old copyright-expired entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's written in an archaic, hagiographical style.
GirthSummit (blether)18:57, 24 July 2023 (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.