Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary DeMar


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  09:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Gary DeMar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Non-notable 10 minute podcasts and a string of non-notable books/articles don't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I don't see any coverage of him, so the only item to consider is WP:NAUTHOR. No indication of any awards or such. The best I have for him is Google Scholar, one of his books gets 68 citations, but I don't think that's enough to pass NAUATHOR, and he is not an academic anyway to contend for NPROF. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the key figures in Christian Reconstruction. See, for example, the coverage in Michael McVicar, Christian Reconstruction: R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism (The University of North Carolina Press, 2015) and Julie Ingersoll, Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction (Oxford University Press, 2015). StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - the person is notable as a supporter for Preterism, although considered controversial, providing a significant minority view. JohnThorne (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You may consider him important, but that's opinion. Where is the significant third party coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria 1 (only one criteria needed) as prominent in his field, in this case Preterism imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which criteria does it allegedly pass? You've used the same reason for multiple AFD's, but never showed how. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep -- That is a long list of publications. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Merely publishing something doesn't establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC: no significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources - I didn't check all his books, but some are published by American Vision with which he has a close connection, so they may count as self-published - in any event, I couldn't find any reviews or writeups to satisfy WP:NBOOK - notability not established - Epinoia (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. His work was the subject of a highly critical Newsweek article: Beliefwatch: Separated? by Waldman, Steven, Sep 11, 2006, Vol.148(9), p.9. His work was also attacked in Friend or Foe? by David, Jim, The Advocate (The national gay & lesbian newsmagazine), April 11, 2006, p.32(1) His work was also brought to task in "Justice David Josiah Brewer and the "Christian nation" maxim", Green, Steven K., Albany Law Review, Winter, 1999, Vol.63(2), p.427. His work was also discussed in "Purifying the Law: The Legal World of "Christian Patriots"", Barkun, Michael, Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 2007, Vol.1(1), pp.57-70. With national media and academic articles outside of his field publishing criticsm of his work, I'd say he passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2019 (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.