Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard J. Van Till


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 13:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Howard J. Van Till

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:PROF; I could not find any highly cited publications on Google Scholar. Instead, most results are books he has written or commentaries he has written in theology journals, none of which have many citations. I have added a source to the article, but as it is a local newspaper I am unsure if it is reliable, and I can't find many other reliable sources. Jinkinson  talk to me  20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pop-theologian with a GS h-index of 6. No cites in physics. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Ronald Numbers writes about him in Darwinism Comes to America - Page 12 (books.google.com/books?isbn=0674193121) 1998, Samuel J. Waldron wrote A Critique of Howard Van Till's The Fourth Day books.google.com/books?id=i7WOYgEACAAJ 1988 - ‎No preview and there are numerous other reviews and responses by other academics to his work. He's written several books and papers and has been somewhat influential, including writing sections of the Encyclopedia of science and religion, Volume 1 http://books.google.com/books?id=OFHuAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Howard+J.+Van+Till%22&dq=%22Howard+J.+Van+Till%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pi3fUtSpEZDesASFm4LYAg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCDgK.  Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Center for Inquiry, independent of Van Till (although they invited him to speak), "used a search engine for Professor Van Till and came up with an extraordinary number of hits, as he has been cited in, or been a contributor to, a vast number of publications as well as his own lectures and presentations; books and articles." I have expanded the article somewhat, with citations from critical sources. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see any evidence for this claim. What he has written is irrelevant. It's what others have written about him that is important and it's not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep -- I was doubtful at first, but he seems to be a significnat academic involved in religion and science debates. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I'd consider marginal notability as WP:AUTHOR, but reviews of his books are cited from self-published blogs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I stand by my previous view of Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Xxanthippe, which claim can you "not see evidence for": my claim, or the claim stated on the Center for Inquiry website? – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that User:Xxanthippe has not explained what he is sceptical about. Meanwhile, here is an article about Van Till's career in the Chicago Tribune. Like Peterkingiron, I stand by my "Keep" vote. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:59, 16 February 2014 (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.