Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Laughery


 * 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Greg Laughery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable - fails WP:PROF StAnselm (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User:StAnselm are you sure, or should someone take a closer look for possible scholarly impact?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's certainly the person. Google Scholar indicates an h-index of 3. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * h index is irrelevant in the humanities, and of all possible humanities, most irrelevant in theology. .  DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. But it is so very low, and it is hard to find anything to suggest significant impact as a scholar. StAnselm (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @StAnselm; take a look at what I was able to cite in the voting below, and let me know what you think. (P.S. Big Anselm of Canterbury fan here — great name!) --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep -- A significant, if modest output of published works. I suspect that his scholarly output is of a kind not likely to lead to a lot of citations.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk   15:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete web searches turn up no independent sources, only external link in the article is the subject's own blog, fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC, to pass WP:AUTHOR I'd like somebody to show me book reviews. Kraxler (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage in reliable sources referenced or found.  Sandstein   07:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (was comment) per UBI-et-ORBI: I was uncertain about this, along 's comments above. Yes there isn't much written about him, as most of the academics in his field. He's written a ton of publications and his books are placed in library collections. WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF tend to favour online sources, ironically. It'd be extremely tough to put forth significant reviews on theological publications or prove his academic influence otherwise. I reckon these lesser known individuals are discriminated upon by the very fact that they don't work in areas most of the public care about; which consequently makes their work harder to judge, harming their chances in deletion discussion such as this. Anyway, I've posted a message in the relevant WikiProject that will hopefully garner much needed input to this discussion. Update: having seen UBI-et-ORBI's rebuttal below, I'm more comfortable in !voting for keep. Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  18:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I admit that I was at first skeptical about this gentleman's notability; however I have managed to uncover some relevant source information, which if included in a revision of the Article, would lead me to support keeping it (per WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF).
 * 1) He is the director of the Swiss "shelter for spiritual seekers" L'Abri for 20+ years, which was covered by an article in Christianity Today, and according to a piece by BeliefNet author Robert Gelinas, "stirred up a bit of controversy" under his leadership. see Gelinas article, here.
 * 2) In Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism by Molly Worthen, he is among those given thanks for assisting in her research. see relevant page (p.267) of Worthen book, here.
 * 3) In Fasting: The Ancient Practices by Scot McKnight, he is acknowledged as reviewing/commenting on early manuscripts to the book. see relevant page (p. 175) of McKnight book, here.
 * 4) He is given a special acknowledgment as a reviewer/editor in Genesis: The Story We Haven't Heard by Paul Borgman. see relevant page (p. 8) of Borgman book, here.
 * In conclusion, I would judge these are solid pieces of evidence for his impact on the academic community (though it seems much work has been done "behind the scenes"). In addition to his own publications, there appears to be a valid argument for preserving the Article. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as WP:PROF goes, behind-the-scenes mentions do not really contribute to notability at all. I received such a mention myself, recently. As far as the CT article goes, I saw it, but I don't think it is enough for GNG. He doesn't inherit L'Abri's notability, of course - and it seems that after Schaeffer's death the whole movement fragmented somewhat, and Laughery led one of the fragments. StAnselm (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The other thing about the CT article is that Gelinas quotes Laughery as saying it was a "remarkably inaccurate piece". So I'd be reluctant to rely too much on it for notability purposes. In any case, the article is much more about L'Abri than it is about Laughery. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite true (I've also received such mentions myself, though would shudder at the though of this type of biographical coverage); but does not his extensive tenure at L'Abri and its fracture, augmented by his citable influence on his colleagues, indicate a certain importance which we ourselves might not yet fully recognize? I am more than ready to admit that the present Article is severely lacking in substance, but with this source material on his impact both discussed and referenced via editorial revision (and I emphasize adding discussion of these things, which the current iteration is devoid of), what harm can be done? As for the CT piece, I noted the same comment, and so instead provided a link to Gelinas as a potential new reference (as he appears more straightforward in his assessment).
 * (As an aside): I am no fan of this man's theological principals, so please do not think me biased towards an affection for him. Rather, it's an affection for salvaging our NPOV compendium of human knowledge, where it is appropriate to do so. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Just taking a look at the "sources" shown above:
 * 1. is a "letter to the editor" by Laughery, a primary source
 * 2. a trivial mention, a bare mention of his name as a "thanks to X" for having made an unknown amount of contribution (maybe one word, maybe a year of discussions, who knows)
 * 3. same as 2. but says "read earlier versions of the manuscript" but nobody knows what his contributions/suggestions were
 * 4. similar to 2. and 4., saying "hours of reading and comment" (how many?)
 * Conclusion: Very vague contributions, nothing documented, Wikipedia is based in sources, not in hearsay. Sorry, but my !vote stands. Kraxler (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Though it seems you are fixed in your position, for the benefit of others partaking in this discussion, I will briefly reply:


 * To your first point: My interest was more in Gelinas' straightforward introductory statement; which discusses Laughery's role at L'Abri, presents the context of the earlier CT article, and the associated controversy (all of which are currently missing from the Wiki Article, and goes towards WP:PROF).
 * To the subsequent thee points: The extent of his influence is not so much an issue, as much as is the fact that he did directly influence other published authors.
 * The goal here should not be to judge the grandeur of his notability, but to gauge wether or not he meets the baseline criteria for inclusion. The aforementioned leadership role and academic influence speak to that fact. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Further Citations (New): The following can be viewed at the L'Abri Fellowship's selection of published works (listed by author), here. Each of the three quotes are in regards to his book Living Reflections, and are attributable to Professors at three distinct Universities:


 * The following is taken from the book Entrepreneur? Bring Your Vision to Life: The Guide for Christian Entrepreneurs to Turn What If Into Reality by Ralph McCall, of which the relevant pages (pp. 211-212) may be viewed here:


 * --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first three are blurbs; we judge notability by reviews. The last one is in a book published by Destinée Media, which I see is a "not-for-profit Swiss Association" which includes Laughery among its authors. I suspect it's not really independent of the subject. StAnselm (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This first objection seems to be a matter of nomenclature; the purpose of my inclusion of them is to establish impact on the relevant community. As for the second issue, I do not think the book's author makes any effort to hide the extent of Laughery's contribution to his work — here again, my purpose is to demonstrate pertinent impact and collaboration. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * N.B.: I can find noting in the WP Notability Guidelines that discriminates between "blurbs" and "reviews," save for in the context of academic journals. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The guidelines require "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" All we get here is mentions and accolades from sources that are connected to the subject: his shelter, his books' publisher, authors he helped (to unknown extent) to write books. His own books are largely ignored by the public. Although "preaching to the wind" is widely practiced by religious figures, there is no way to gauge notability in the case of no feedback. Sorry, he may be a nice guy, but he fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if he's a nice guy, in point of fact, I somewhat doubt it. However you ignore these elements of WP:PROF — "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. [...] in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries)." --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet again, the public has nothing to do with it, Kraxler. His field is mostly ignored by the public, and even within the humanities. This sort of coverage is pretty much the most one can get. I wonder if would like to commit and !vote? FoCuS  contribs ;  talk to me!  14:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. I do not think he actually shows notability under WP:PROF. There is only one academic work,Living Hermeneutics in Motion: An Analysis and Evaluation of Paul Ricoeur's Contribution to Biblical Hermeneutics, , a reprint of his thesis, in 110libraries. That's a reasonable number of holdings, but its only one academic book. Nor is it the major book on Ricour. WorldCat shows multiple books on him by much more prestigious publishers than University Press of America, with many hundreds of holdings. The book is supplemented by 4 respectable academic articles, in good journals in the field. This sort of publication record would normally correspond to the minimum requirements for tenure in the humanities, at the Associate Professor rank. We almost never consider academics at that level notable. (Personally, I think we should, but there has been a reasonably consistent consensus otherwise, and I no longer challenge it.) I The other books are popular spirituality with no library holdings    and do not contribute to notability as WP:PROF. The various acknowledgements do not contribute to notability--academics are very profuse in giving them, & they cannot be considered as other than indiscriminate. Relying on such material for notability often indicates there is no actual notability in our usual sense.  Popular spirituality books can sometimes make for notability as WP:AUTHOR, but for people who qualify for that in this field, thee are normally multiple books with many hundred library holdings--popular writings on religion are very widely read, unlike academic theology.  I am also concerned that we have no information in the article about his career, but I see some cited above.  The international L'Abri organization might   be appropriate for an article. The Swiss branch is the original location, but I am not sure that Direct of the Swiss L'Abri Center is notable.  DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the matters relating to L'Abri, I would draw together both the | Christianity Today article and the | introductory comments of Gelinas (as I cited above). From there we may see that his term as the Director of L'Abri (see WP:PROF) and the secondary sources regarding its controversial nature (see WP:N), in combination with his noted impact & contribution to other published works, his own works, and the praise given by reliable academic sources (as above), creates a subject worthy of note under the guidelines. Furthermore, his Directorship of the L'Abri Fellowship in and of itself must be valued subjectively, and cannot be flatly dismissed pursuant to WP:PROF.
 * That being said, thank's for lending your thoughts to this discussion! --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2015 (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.