Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix Neff

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 and improve. It's snowing in July. ^Complex/_Rational 13:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Neff

[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)

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Switzerland. 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]
- Also, the Waldensian Evangelical Church seems keen on him (see this link, initially introduced by a disruptive editor). ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Pbritti (talk) 16:13, 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]
Keep. Take one single look at fr:Felix Neff and you know this is an article that needs expansion, not deletion. Sam Sailor 07:43, 24 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Encyclopædia Britannica is far more selective than Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing shown by Pbritti above 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pbritti's work - thanks for your work on this.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, but don't keep the existing text, which reads like it has been copied from the Britannica. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:17, 28 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.