Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Grant (author)


 * 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. Or at most no consensus.  Sandstein  17:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

George Grant (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I lean towards keep since there's a fairly wide variety of reliable sources with different dates, but the coverage in those sources is shallow and there don't really seem to be more available than are already in the article. Thus, posting to get consensus on whether the subject is notable enough to keep, per the talk page. Benny White (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Benny White (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Benny White (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Similar to a number of other Christian reconstructionist figures nominated a few months ago (see Articles for deletion/Gary DeMar, Articles for deletion/David Chilton). Julie Ingersoll devotes several pages to Grant in her Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction (Oxford University Press, 2015). StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources in the page are nearly all just 1-2 sentence passing-mentions of the subject or local paper op-eds, none rising to the level of notability by themselves, and very far between mentions. The Ingersoll reference is a good one though and if the page is kept, should be added as a primary source. (does Ingersoll meet notability?). Most of the content is related to association with Christian reconstruction so maybe worth mentioning on that page? Jimstevens25 (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added well-sourced material on some of his more notable activities, the difficulty was that he has such a common name that it is necessary to figure out good search words.  Although the page is labeled "author", Grant is notable as a pastor and Christian political activist.IceFishing (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article has been significantly improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources that combined show a pass of WP:Basic so that deletion is not necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep (1) nom does not ask for deletion (2) 60 books + 13 editions is a notable lifetime output (3) A lack of or weak sourcing is not a ground for deletion: the test is whether the content is verifiable, not whether it is verified. Clearly his views are controversial and contrary to the current liberal consensus, but WP:IDONOTLIKEIT is not a ground for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2020 (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.