Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Nathaniel Henry Peters (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

George Nathaniel Henry Peters
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article is about an non-notable author who has written one or two books about pre-millennialism. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 22:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the most highly notable religious eschatologists known throughout history. Although, the article should probably be renamed George N.H. Peters, as this was the name he wrote under, and most people with interest wouldn't know to look under his full name. The research and works he completed are classics in the study of premillennialism. The subject clearly meets criteria established under WP:AUTHOR. A collection of his works and research papers are held by the Dallas Theological Seminary Archives. As well, there are numerous resources available that establish his notability. These are a few. Cindamuse (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Six weeks have elapsed since the first AfD, and no one has been particularly interested in improving the article. Of the two three links above (I missed the middle link while in 'edit' mode), only the first is of any value in establishing notability. The PDF file itself states that Peters "lived in relative obscurity" and that he is primarily known for only one book; there is a single biographical page which reads like a eulogy, and a list of Peters' writings, most of which were apparently unpublished ("no record has been found that they were published"). The second link is a review of The Theocratic Kingdom&mdash;by an author who is also apparently not notable&mdash;that discredits Peters and his book. The third link is an ad from a publishing company trying to sell The Theocratic Kingdom, not an impartial site acknowledging Peters' notability. The existence of a book does not automatically make either the book or its author 'notable'. Most of the other authors listed on Schoettle Publishing Company's website have not warranted their own article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the article survives the AfD, I wouldn't have any problem with Cindamuse's suggestion to rename (per WP:COMMON) if he is better known as "George N. H. Peters" (with the proper spacing).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Better still retain the present title and create "George N. H. Peters" as a redirect to it (or vice versa). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Per WP:AUTHOR, the subject of this article meets the first three criteria for inclusion. 1. Peters is an important figure in the eschatological study of premillennialism. He was not only cited during his lifetime, but continues to be cited over a hundred years after his death. 2. A hundred years after his death, his works continue to be published. He is known for his extensive research and presentation of the theological theory of premillennialism. 3. He created a significant and well-known body of work that has been presented in multiple independent periodical articles and reviews for well over a hundred years. 4. While his work is represented in a permanent collection by the Dallas Theological Seminary Archives, I don't know if this meets the fourth criteria, since the criteria states representation in galleries or museums. Cindamuse (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per User:Jeffro77-- Can't find evidence that this is a notable book and no other grounds for notability are asserted Vartanza (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per recent AFD outcome and as above. No time limit on article improvement, especially such a short interval. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Jeffro77 --78.101.33.213 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC) — 78.101.33.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Given his lone other contribution, his intent here appears simply to offset my !vote out of spite. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Some expert attention could possibly make a decent article of this; listing in Category:Articles needing expert attention might help. Somewhat hampered by books with snippet views or no previews in Google Books, but +peters +"theocratic kingdom" turns up a number of hits, some of which might attest to notability within premillenialism/Biblical studies, a sampling of which follows:  Short bio in Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography.  In Hal Lindsey's The Road to the Holocaust, TK called by Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, "most important single work on Biblical predictive prophecy"; Peters called "The author of the widely used Theocratic Kingdom" in George W. Dollar History of Fundamentalism in America; Robert Paul Lightner in Last Days Handbook calls TK "a classic [...] in defense of premillenialism"; TK "an exhaustive and convincing study" in In word and deed: evangelism and social responsibility; "The only serious attempt" to discuss a certain Biblical passage in The coming of the Lord: will it by premillennial?; TK "the 'grandfather' work on Bible prophecy" in An introduction to classical evangelical hermeneutics; "classic work" in The millennial kingdom by John Walvoord; TK "greatest work on prophetic interpretation ever written" by Lewis Sperry Chafer (taken from blurb on ad for reprint); "the most complete and exhaustic discussion of the important subject of which it treats that has been prepared" by James H. Brookes (advance testimonial for original printing); "a most comprehensive, exhaustic and standard work on all points relating to eschatology" in The Homiletic Monthly.  Cited for one of the "prominent" usages of some phrase by Jerry Falwell in Liberty commentary on the New Testament.  Presbyterian journal indicates some other book was written in the 1970s "to relate Peters' work on the theocratic kingdom of JEsus Christ to today's generation" but snippet doesn't reveal what one.  Looks like there may have been a dissertation on it as well; there's a hit in Comprehensive Dissertation Index, 1861-1972: Philosophy and religion anyway, but no preview.  Difficult to judge if there is significant coverage without taking more time, and very probably having to use the library rather than relying solely on the internet. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no reason in keeping this article, unless someone can seriously improve it. Personally, I think we have given enough time for improvements to be made. I say delete it. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think its clear from the comment just above that he was significant within his sphere. I urge Willthacheerleader18 to expand the article.    DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It is always difficult to judge a stub on AFD. However, this discussion has produced two lengthy comments on the notability of his Theocratic kingdom.  Is there any hope of either of these contributors expanding the article or converting it inot an article on that book?  Sorry, not my subject.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not my field either, but he seems to be a victim of living in a pre-internet age so that there are few online sources. It's not doing any harm. Could be moved though. Chris (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that supporters of Peters here are very quick to say that the he was 'extremely significant' and that the article must be retained. However, as was seen after the previous AfD, those same people are much less interested in improving the article beyond a stub. If the article can actually be improved, then by all means do so. Based on what has been presented, Theocratic Kingdom would be a suitable source for articles relating to premillenialism, however he doesn't seem to be especially notable beyond that.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2010 (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.