Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Riplinger


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Gail Riplinger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail Notability (academics). She might be notable for the controversy around her views on the King James Bible, but that seems to be an internet only controversy, and not in enough reliable sources to be notable. First Light (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - If only to keep her fans from accusing us of bias and vandalism when we remove their poorly-sourced praise. That and because there are absolutely no sources in the article demonstrating notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. First Light (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. First Light (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. First Light (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. First Light (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. First Light (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. First Light (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Very little in reliable sources. Her books have only been reviewed in a few small journals (Master's Seminary Journal, Christian Research Journal, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal). One of those reviews says Riplinger is "reportedly a lay person with degrees in architectural and structural engineering, who lives in Ravenna, Ohio, though this reviewer has not met her and knows little about her." There is a Christianity Today article that might have significant coverage ("King James-Only Advocates Experience Renaissance" by Joe Maxwell), but I don't have access to it. But as far as coverage of Riplinger personally goes, I can't even find out where she got her degrees. I gather she taught at Kent State University, but even that isn't in reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: not because she is not notable. She is. "New Age Bible Versions" was received with acclaim by much of the "King James Version Only" movement. King James Only advocate, David Cloud, notes that it gained "a far-reaching audience". The late Jack Hyles pastor of one of the largest churches in the US at the time, presented Mrs. Riplinger with an honorary doctorate degree from Hyles-Anderson College for her work on the book. Her work is commonly cited by King James Only advocates. But the article in its present form lacks substantial biographical material and breaks the wikipedia policies against using information uncritically from self-published books. The editors of this page have removed substantial, verifiable material (including simple biographical material from a linked wedding certificate for general date of birth, place of birth, etc.) I tried to add material that simply documented that her degrees were in home economics and art but the editors removed that too, while allowing to stand the unsubstantiated claim that she has studied at Harvard and Cornell and was a "professor" (rather than an instructor). Wikipedia needs a page on G. A. Riplinger but the current regime of editors will not allow a serious one with verifiable substance. No page on her would be better than this sham. Yeoberry (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To a degree, the failure of your attempt to "balance" the article rests on your own shoulders, because your approach to it has been shrill and demanding and has ignored the advice you've been given by a number of editors about how things work around here. Instead of listening to what you've been told, you've been beating people over the head with the expectation that they will do what you tell them to if only your cudgel is big enough.  That's simply not going to work around here, my friend, and your heavy-handed attempts to force it to happen have been fruitless - and will continue to be so unless you wise up and listen to what's being said to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

– You continue to ignore four facts: (1) the article as it is violates wikipedia policy by uncritically accepting the subjects claims in a self-published work; (2) it lacks basic biographical information, e.g. a casual reader wouldn't know her birth name, what part of the US she is from, etc.; (3) it lacks significant favorable information about her (honorary doctorate, the sales of her most prominent book); (4) the controversy around her, including from leaders of the very KJV-only movement she is apart. I provided all of that with verification. Rather than augment or improve it, they simply reverted back to the current article, which is inadequate. If this is the way things are done "around here", then I don't really want to be around here. If you want a serious encyclopedia, you and your fellow editors are going to need to change.Yeoberry (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your 4 points for the most part, you didn't provide "all of that with verification", you violated the mandatory policy of Wikipedia regarding the biographies of living people. That is why the material was removed and discussions were initiated on the talk page. You are blaming others for your lack of understanding of the rules that we are all obliged to follow here. It is wrong to shoot the messenger so you should stop doing that.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

–What "mandatory policy of Wikipedia regarding the biographies of living people". I didn't uncritically copy material from a self-published book, such as this page still retains. I have verification from an official copy of a marriage certificate by the state of Ohio. I have the words of Riplinger and D. A. Waite themselves. And other accurate citations. My every statement is verified which is not the case with the page as it currently stands. If you showed some concern for that, I'd believe you were serious about the wikipedia standards.Yeoberry (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * weak Keep and let someone edit neutrally who has access to the sources. I have just speedy-deleted Yeoberry's  attempt at constructing a competing article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/G. A. Riplinger, as A10, attack page, written by the above ed.  The additional material there is not limited to her education, but contains some negative discussion of her personal life. The nature of that article does not give me much confidence in the argument.     This appears to be an editing dispute which is a poor enough reason for deletion, but especially when the person saying it seems  to be saying: if it can't have the negative material, we shouldn't have it."  They've already been given a final warning for BLP violation by another editor. However, some of the complaints about neutrality of the p[resent article may be well-founded; I have not investigated. As for the responsible arguments, St.A's  argument for "delete"    admits in so many words that her work is notable and widely  quoted.  Christianity Today is a very respectable publication,and we should not be deleting on the basis of no sources for notability when the person urging it admits there's a source but  has not   read it. We do not delete when the only sources are pay-walled. The nom's argument that the notability is limited in a small circle is unreasonable: WP covers non-mainstream religious movements and the people who are notable within them.  KJO is not fringe, tho it seems to me a rather extreme form of fundamentalism.   DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

–My competing article, "G.A. Riplinger", was not an "attack page." That's completely unfair. It simply didn't uncritically accept the claims from Ripliinger's self-published work. I reported neutral biographical information sorely lacking in this article and favorable information also lacking. I had verification of every statement made. It's simply that a person who has made the sorts of controversial statements she has, has gathered much unfavorable attention. There is no way to have a neutral report on her without citing those criticisms.Yeoberry (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a lengthy discussion at Talk:Gail Riplinger (the subheading title there keeps changing....) about the "verification" that Yeoberry was using—I invite other editors to get involved. I was a bit unsure about the notability of the subject when I nominated it here, because of the article's dependence (still!) entirely on her own sources, plus one quote from the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, which in their own words is "designed to present scholarly articles from a fundamentalist perspective." If the "keep" editors here could offer more than the one reliable source (Christianity Today) it would help the article going forward if it is kept. I realize you have no technical obligation to do so, though I would hope that more attention to the article would help move it forward from the BLP violation and POV soapboxing, assuming it is kept. Reliable sources actually used in the article would help with that. First Light (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

–I used reliable sources and verification, including an official wedding certificate from the state of Ohio. (Is that state considered unreliable?) But it was taken down (at least three times) and the current unverified, scanty article put back.Yeoberry (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Using various Google searches, it appears that the Christianity Today article doesn't even mention her name, which would be notable in itself by its absence, demonstrating a lack of notability in the field by a source that covers it. (A search for *"King James-Only Advocates Experience Renaissance" riplinger* in all of Google produces no results.). First Light (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (but let's get some facts corrected, etc., without adding attack facts) -- even the largest detractors of the subject admit that she is notable (Yeoberry) or provide sources that assert notability (Christianity Today is a major publication); notability is the criteria for keeping an article, not support for a subject's beliefs. (edit conflict: reply to First Light): not everything is free on Google. Getting the article from EBSCOhost shows that she is the main topic of the article (her first name is spelled "Gall" in the online source, probably from an OCR error).  The best quote about her influence from the article is "Riplinger's book, which was published in 1993 and has 100,000 copies in circulation, has itself prompted vigorous rebuttal from many quarters" and then follows are rebuttals from several very prominent scholars.  That someone is considered important enough to refute argues strongly for notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Notable. I can't bring myself to endorse this article with a keep, but the subject is notable enough for an article. A major figure in King James Only circles, her book was influential enough that people like James White (theologian) wrote extensively to rebut her. Negative notability is still notability, but it does point to the challenges we can expect in having a neutral article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  05:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -My examination of the subject convinces me that Riplinger is quite notable in Christian circles. The article itself is deficient in not making note of her many critics and their arguments, but that's a matter for editing and considerations of WP:WEIGHT, and does not enter into the question of deletion. To not have an article on this person would be detrimental to the encycylopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The question of notability is open and shut - when I clicked the Google Books link above, there are _books_ written about the significance and effects of her work. The article in its present form seems decently neutral and straightforward, although it could use some better citing. Ray  Talk 15:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:Notability (academics). The mere fact of being considered newsworthy and getting mentioned in books is not in itself a measure of academic notability. Furthermore, being quoted by advocates of the KJVO (The King James Version Only) and an honorary doctorate from Hyles-Anderson College which includes in its basic statement:
 * "SCRIPTURES — We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. The Old and New Testament are definitely inspired word for word. We accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts from which came the King James Bible. The Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice." []
 * is not independent academic endorsement. The KJVO movement is definitely notable and I suggest it is best understood as a type of extended event or perhaps a very loose organization. If this analogy is applied  here.  Riplinger falls under the "one event criterion" wp:BLP1E and/or "notability is not inherited" and so any properly sourced encyclopaedic material here should be included in the King James Only movement article and at most Gail Riplinger should be a redirect.Jpacobb (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ' Keep' Riplinger is definitely not an academic (despite her pretentions to the contrary), but she is an author of multiple books that have been widely reviewed, albeit not in places where we're used to looking for reliable sources.  Garamond Lethe  17:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Having spent quite a few hours assembling sources and after a good conversation on the talk page, I've concluded that Riplinger is a notable author but there just aren't enough reliables sources on her life outside of New Age Bible Versions to support a free-standing article on her.  If this article is removed sooner rather than later I'll start a new article on NABV.  Otherwise I'll continue working on this article with the assumption that we may move it in a week or two.  Garamond Lethe  02:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any consensus for moving it, I'm seeing what basically looks like no consensus (5 keeps, 3 weak keeps and 6 deletes). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Irregardless of the Riplinger article, I would support a New Age Bible Versions article and help with it. Basileias (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This person would barely pass the notability guidelines and from some editor standpoints there is not enough coverage that is third party and independent with editorial oversight. However, I believe there is enough sources to get over the notability hump. While the subject deals with fringe theories in the Evangelical movement, those theories are chronicled in Wikipedia and a proponent of them is most definitely notable. What her fans or detractors "feel" is irrelevant. Basileias (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This individual is notable for what she has written and done, even though the article requires vigilance. Andrew (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At least a weak keep -- However, I would have preferred to see more content, and citations of more than the subject's own work. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a list of sources on the talk page and I'll be at Kent State in a couple of weeks looking for more there. Give it a month and I think the article will be in significantly better shape.  Garamond Lethe  15:24, 25 December 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.