Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Anderson (Theologian)


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

David R. Anderson (Theologian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionable notability. 1 independent ref. lots of self published books. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd probably recommend speedying this since this is a pretty unambiguously promotional page for the theologian. The theological view section alone is pretty spammy since the use of quotes comes across as a promotional blurb for the religion itself. I'm also mildly worried that the two accounts editing the pages might be the same person (sockpuppetry) or two people working in tandem (meatpuppetry) since User:GraceTheology originally created these in the draftspace and then after they were all declined User:KeelanBilog signed up for an account and cut/pasted two of the pages into the mainspace. I may open up an SPI to this end, although I think that this is likely meatpuppetry more than sockpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm really not finding much out there. The thing about theology is that despite the amount of believers, it's a pretty lonely field that doesn't garner a huge amount of non-primary sources. For every 100 theologians there may be 2-5 that will gain coverage to where they'd merit a Wikipedia article, and this is likely being pretty generous. The mainstream media and reliable sources that would cover theologians and theological topics in a manner that would make them a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines are pretty few and far between. This doesn't mean that they don't exist or that it's impossible to get coverage, but there are only a few places that focus on this topic and many, many people jockeying for attention. As such, they are extremely selective in what they cover - far more so than in other disciplines like science, math, philosophy, and so on. It looks like many places that have covered Anderson has been places associated with him in some form or fashion or they're in places that really wouldn't be considered RS per Wikipedia's guidelines. Offhand I don't see where the journal of the Grace Evangelical Society would count as a RS, which is kind of an example of the issue with finding coverage for theologians. It doesn't mean that Anderson isn't well thought of or that he might not have done impressive things, just that so far I can't find anything to show that he's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I just can't find anything out there other than press releases and trivial mentions in local press. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Theology is not a serious academic subject but a joke. How can you study that which doesn't exist? Most of the "theologians" produce barely disguised pseudo-intellectual wishful thinking sold in volume to naive followers. What matters in religion is not how logical it is, since it is illogical, but how many people are sheepish enough to follow it. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The closing admin should please completely disregard the above !vote, as it is completely off-topic. Agricola44 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Weak keep - I think his output as an author. Founding a series of churches also suggests notability.  Taking these together there is just about enough  to merit keeping it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Books published by his (part-time) employer, no independent sources, except one mention in a local newspaper. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Kraxler (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article is a promo piece. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2015 (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.