Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Ray Dunning


 * 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. Tone 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

H. Ray Dunning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tricky one, hence sitting in CAT:NN for over 11years. He has been published, articles and books. He has held an academic post. But looking at it altogether, I can't see him passing WP:PROF, WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. At least most of the sources should be in English and easily accessible. Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  13:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  14:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NAUTHOR is plausible. I found a review  of one book and a "critical response"  to another.  There's a citation to another review in the latter.  It may be harder to find sources as much of the subjects work predates the internet era. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's another review of that book here. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR with reviews of his works in multiple reliable sources as shown above and now in the article so deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? There has been no significant change to the article since its nomination (only some category sorting) and the article still does not list any reviews. There are reviews listed above, but the number is small. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Stand corrected about the article state but there are three scholarly reviews identified in the discussion, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. No serious challenge to the level of notability established by the reviews cited here, and the nominator's argument that "At least most of the sources should be in English and easily accessible" is utterly ungrounded in policy and reflects quite poorly on their basic WP:COMPETENCE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I was saying that this person's first language is English, so that is likely to be the language of most relevant sources, as opposed to another I had nominated, where I had commented that we needed to be extra careful because of possible confusion and difficulty tracking down sources in the subject's native language. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that there was some ambiguity in the "should be" in the nomination statement. I initially interpreted it in the same sense as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, so thanks for clearing the point up. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Dunning is one of the most important and infulential theologians in the Wesleyan/Holiness branch of Christianity. Kevin Rector (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The comment immediately above comes without evidence, but the sources identified above along with the one I just added to the article show that it is true. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:43, 23 July 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.