Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Aaron Roberts


 * 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. L Faraone  20:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dean Aaron Roberts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable blogger and associate pastor. The only evidence of notability here is the award of the Best Christian Blog for Under 25's by Christian New Media. This doesn't rise to the level of a notable award per WP:ANYBIO: "...has received a well-known and significant award or honor,...". There are no secondary sources that show notability or discuss the subject. Fails WP:N. Tassedethe (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep:There is a secondary source for Dean Aaron Roberts here, by Trystan Owain Hughes noting Dean Aaron Roberts as an award winning blogger. http://www.trystanowainhughes.com/#/compassion-quest-reviews/4574224298 . Dean Aaron Roberts was also a finalist at the 2012 Christian New Media awards as referenced here: http://www.newmediacentreofexcellence.org.uk/cnmac/awards/shortlist and is mentioned as the recepient of the Best Christian Blogger for Under 25's by Christian Today magazine: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/vicky.beeching.easterlive.and.youversion.take.home.christian.media.awards/28770.htm Inthepubliceye (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable as per Tassedethe. The additional sources mentioned by Inthepubliceye are also not notable and niche. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would argue that being 'niche' is relative to who you are and what your subject interests are. Premier Media is the biggest contributor to Christian news, radio and media coverage in the UK and so for many, the article in question may not be as 'niche' as you would like to suggest, especially when Premier Media are endorsing Dean Aaron Roberts. It is not very fair to say that the additional sources are niche either, due to the fact that Trystan Owain Hughes is a highly acclaimed theologian, radio broadcaster in the UK and is endorsing the subject matter of this article. It is a similar comment I wish to make with regards to Christian Today, the well established Christian Newspaper - the fact that the subject matter is referenced alongside some other notable organisations and individuals gives the article credibility and noteworthiness. C.F Vicky Beeching, The YouVersion Bible app (LifeChurch.tv) et al. I therefore stick to my position and wish to see the article kept on the basis that notability has been established and is widely available on the internet, not just in primary sources but in secondary also, and that claims of an article being a 'niche' are by no means any grounds to support an article deletion. Inthepubliceye (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd just like to comment on the quote by Tassedethe as the reason they have nominated this article for deletion, "This doesn't rise to the level of a notable award per WP:ANYBIO: "...has received a well-known and significant award or honor,..."." - fine, except that this award *is* well known and *is* significant to the UK Christian community. With regards to secondary sources - these have already been established earlier in this debate. Inthepubliceye (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would like to see this article kept on the basis that the award is given by a well known Christian organisation and, as they are notable, gives credibility and notability to the award and to those who receive it. A quick google search of the name reveals lots of links to primary sources (the blogger in question, but also to secondary sources backing up the information on this article and those claims held on the blogger's personal blog. I contest the view that it fails WP:N and would say otherwise. It does pass WP:N and fulfils criteria of WP:ANYBIO. There are a lot of other articles on Wikipedia about individuals who aren't referenced as well as this article, nor are the person(s) of some other articles as well searched on Google. If a strong keep is contested, it may be worth modifying the article to emphasise that the notability of the person is due to a blogging achievement rather than anything else, in this case as an associate pastor. 92.19.219.41 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on the sources, he appears to be notable. FWIW, I am not a fan of 'happy-clappy' ministers. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- NN as a lay pastor. So, a radio station creates an award (on which we have no article) for the best Christian blog by someone under 25: NN to my mind. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stalwart 111  00:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Not yet notable. Awards for "Best .... under 25" normally have the meaning of someone who is only developing a career, somewhat like best newly founded company . Analogous with our policy on youth awards generally, which does not even recognize the Rhodes Scholarship as a demonstration of notability, such awards are not sufficient. (In this case, the source relied upon for the award gives him nothing more than a mention in a list, while giving an actual discussion of the major award winners.)  DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This is merely an opinion until you reference this policy and state exactly where the article in question does not meet the standard of the policy set. I don't even know if there is such a policy. If there is, fine, but the debates on here are meant to be strengthened with hard cold evidence, not simply musings and assumptions. Added to that, if the award is notable, then anyone who receives it is notable. Just because there are some more "major" award winners, that does not detract from the award being given to someone who is less major *in comparison* to some of the others. That is ridiculous. I still stand by my view that this article does not break any policy standards and that even if the person scrapes notability by the skin of their teeth, they are STILL notable.Inthepubliceye (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment RE: Peterkingiron's comment. That is all it is, a comment. Again not backed up by policies and their standards. Just because Wikipedia does not have an article on a certain award, it does not mean that the award or it's holders are not notable. Wikipedia is a work in progress and not dictatorial of whether something or someone is notable or not. Please see my above comment as to why I still hold to my view to keep this article (and all my other comments).Inthepubliceye (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Essentially self-sourced and vaguely promotional. We're all bloggers here, aren't we? Having a blog which is the recipient of a non-notable award of some sort is..........umm.......... non-notable. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Carrite, your objections have already been discussed earlier in this debate (see FruitMonkey's reason and justification and the responses made by the defendant of the article). As Inthepubliceye has said, guidelines for debating these issues clearly stipulate that merely stating "Delete" and then saying something isn't this or that is not enough to contribute to finding an outcome which is partly why this AfD has been relisted. You must explain how the article violates Wikipedia polices. I don't see that this article does violate them as I explained in my contribution, though this IP address may be different now; (92.19.219.41 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)) using the policies on WP:ANYBIO and WP:N to justify my reasons. Also, on a slightly different point, your comments could be seen as rude and so I would like to ask and remind those who contribute to this and any discussion to please observe WP:AFDEQ, especially WP:CIV, WP:EQ and WP:BITE 92.19.219.41 (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment as nominator. No further sources have been offered except for which I would classify as trivial, merely a link from a book promotional page back to a review on the blog of the person under discussion. I would question if even that was independent as it is a review of his "former lecturer". The further links to the new media awards are merely passing mentions. The IP:92.19.219.41 seems to be proposing that as the organisation is notable (which it is) then the awards are notable. This is questionable especially as no proof of such notability is offered. Then they state "...anyone who receives it is notable." which in my opinion is plain wrong. I'd cite WP:NOTINHERITED as part of "Arguments to avoid": "notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities.". The IPs argument actually involves a double level of inheritance none of which is supported by sources unconnected with the subject or more than trivial in nature. Tassedethe (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment How can you say that these sources are trivial? Media coverage of the awards is quite wide within the Christian community, including the Evangelical Alliance, National Church/Christian newspapers. What does it take in order for something to stop being trivial? As I'm a new contributor here, and this is the first article I've ever done, I'm not overly au fait with Wikipedia policies, but I looked at the WP:NOTINHERITED and yes, maybe sometimes the argument that the IP address used is not always helpful. But the guidelines do say that "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." To me, that means that yes there are cases where the WP:NOTINHERITED guidelines kick into effect, but there are cases where it doesn't as well. More than that, the italicised "always" insinuates that in a LOT of cases, notability can be inherited. And if you contest my interpretation, the guidelines still leave room for inherited notability. If the Awards are notable (which I think they are; a quick search on Christian New Media Awards will come up with all sorts of independant sources from the Big Bible Project & CODEC - part of Durham University to the Catholic Press to the Evangelical Alliance) then it is not a double level. And if the Awards are notable, then according to the ANYBIO that the IP address mentioned (as did you in your opening of this request for deletion), then the article passes that as well. I understand that I'm new, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Please also understand that the subject area is specialist and within a certain "world" if you like, the Christian world and so it's not going to have the same sources as the Nobel peace prize. Inthepubliceye (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: after relisting this discussion I contacted the original author to raise a few concerns and we ended up discussing the article in more general terms. The article has now been userfied at User:Inthepubliceye/Dean Aaron Roberts draft to allow the editor to continue working on the article until such point as the subject meets notability criteria. Stalwart 111  23:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Close now as delete -- The result of userifying should be that we do not need the existing article. This will make the space available for it to be uploaded when ready.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2013 (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.