Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Kemberling


 * 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. No evidence provided of notability via WP:GNG, no policy-based rationale for keeping advanced. j⚛e deckertalk 20:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Kemberling

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable priest -- check of available references via findsources produces very little, mainly some news hits that are not primarily about him (he's merely quoted on the topics that form the real interest of those sources). Fails WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did my own search and found very, very little -- about the same as Nomoskedasticity, in that he's quoted opining about other topics.  His books seem to have attracted remarkably little attention; most things that mention his name are blogs or other non-reliable sources, and I found nothing from an arm's-length third-party expert source that seemed relevant.  There is no real claim of notability here and none seems to be present.  Ubelowme (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. He has two mentions in the New York Times, not just because of the actions of others, but due to his own actions. It seems very possible we will hear more from him in the future. He is active in American politics. He is the sort of person whose name you might run across. You might then come to Wikipedia to find out about his background. He is a (minor) player in public affairs and so talking about him seems legit to me. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. The article seems to rely too much on primary sources. --DAJF (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I find this article to be very useful as a contribution to the field. JamesFountain (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * → WP:ITSUSEFUL. --DAJF (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating to see someone pop up at an AfD after not editing anything at all for more than three years. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of reasonable notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject appears to lack any in-depth coverage from secondary sources. If this changes in the future, it will not be difficult to recreate this page. -Verdatum (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.