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 delete. Casting aspersions about other editor's ulterior motives is not going to get you very far in these discussions. WP:AGF -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Ruhe[edit]

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

Simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass either WP:FILMMAKER or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Universal House of Justice. I think there is a misunderstanding that members of the Universal House of Justice have independent notability. Among Baha'is they are not well known as individuals and have no special authority outside of the council chamber. They are not clergy in any sense. David Ruhe has certainly not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article is currently sourced from a single obituary from the Baha'i World News Service. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect per Cuñado; the only reference given is a primary source, which is insufficient to establish notability for Wikipedia articles. Ruhe was a former member of the Universal House of Justice, the institution that acts as the elected, legislative head of the Bahá'í Faith, and the sole reference is to an article on the Baha'i World News Service, which is affiliated with that institution.

Ruhe's former membership on the Universal House of Justice appears to be why the primary author of recent changes to this article believes he is, in fact, notable enough for a stand-alone article. It is the institution which holds authority, however, not its members; individual members have no special standing within Bahá'í communities and wield no authority. In this light, it doesn't make sense to create a separate article on these grounds. It would, perhaps, be a better use of time and effort to contribute to the improvement of Universal House of Justice. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 16:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No independent sources discussing him or his work. Not notable in a wikipedia context. Work at the Universal House of Justice is never penned "from person x" so whatever his work there it is not traceable to any member and historically his work is not of a breadth appropriate for wikipedia. Smkolins (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has existed since 2007. The personage is notable and the sources are valid and objective. All who are voting to "delete" this are also systematically eliminating other articles that present an encyclopedic, objective and unbiased view of the Bahá'í Faith. Some of these editors also intimidate former Bahá'í editors who wish to present an academic view of the Bahá'í Faith not necessarily in accordance with the official narrative of the present Bahá'í Administrative Order. Please feel free to read my talk page for several examples. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making a real great case for yourself here, nor are you leaving a very positive impression of your conduct for other editors. It's fairly trivial to establish how this article does not establish the notability of its subject according to Wikipedia guidelines. Regarding the blanket claim that I am "systematically eliminating" objective articles about the Bahá'í Faith, I invite you to pore over the ten (maybe eleven by now) years of my contributions here to find one such article. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 21:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant third party sources do not exist to define notability. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. DrStrauss talk 08:07, 4 August 2017 (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.