Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Koukl


 * 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. v/r - TP 00:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Greg Koukl

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minor Christian apologist and talk radio host. Little evidence of independent coverage, or that the topic meets WP:CREATIVE, or any other relevant criteria. I am also nominating the article on his ministry: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I would say that he's got enough coverage on google news The Terminator 't c'' 15:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And which, if any, of these sources are reliable, independent and give him "significant coverage"? Mere News WP:GOOGLEHITS is a bad argument for keeping. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Google News coverage. -- 202.124.74.129 (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete both Greg Koukl and Stand To Reason. Both lack reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO or WP:CORPDEPTH.  The various Google hits are all trivial mentions, falling far short of the substantial coverage required.  Msnicki (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to the GNews hits (lots of references to him as a significant anti-abortion advocate and this interview, for example, is certainly more than trivial), GBooks has dozens more.  Many are religious tomes, but the hits also include independent, scholarly works like these  to establish his notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first is an interview and thus a primary source (you can't get 'closer' to the topic, or more of "an insider's view", than interviewing the topic himself), the second and third are both tangential (being on the topic of theological arguments in public debates, and emerging church, respectively). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per WP:BIO notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Therefore, the individual passes WP:BIO due to the availability of stated sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The statement that the individual lacks reliable sources per entire guideline pages, such as WP:RS and WP:BIO doesn't provide any specific rationale for deletion of the article, and exists as a generic, blanket statement without any form of actual qualification. Referring to entire pages of guidelines fails to qualify specific reasons for notability or lack thereof, and equates to referring to an entire list of multiple, specific rationales as a singular, generic rationale. This logic equates to stating that an article should be deleted because of any reason on a guideline page. These types of illogical qualifications are absolutely invalid. Specific examples from guideline pages are valid and should be considered. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – WP:GOOGLEHITS listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are not based upon concensus, are opinion pieces and don't reflect Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would point out that I stated that mere news Google hits was a "bad argument", and supported my statement implicitly by questioning "which, if any, of these sources are reliable, independent and give him 'significant coverage'", as well as by explicitly citing that essay and thus its contents. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. He has Google News hits, but almost all that aren't behind a pay wall only briefly mention him or announce an upcoming speech. The only news hit that could qualify is from the Christian Post and it is an interview, so it is not independent.  There needs to be reliable, significant coverage (per WP:GNG) and I don't see it.  Per Northamerica1000's arguement via WP:BASIC, you need to read quote in context.  Just before the quote, it says a person "has been the subject of multiple published..."   Then as you quote, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial..."  The person has to be the subject of the articles first. If there are alot of articles are about the subject, but they don't go in depth, then you can use WP:BASIC. Bgwhite (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is also a mass of coverage in Google Books, both under "Greg" and "Gregory": . -- 202.124.74.114 (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both Greg Koukl and Stand To Reason fail WP:GNG. Many, many hits across multiple media (they're in the media business, after all), but all that I could find a things written by them, references to their books in footnotes or passing mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2011 (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.