Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Matthew Pinson


 * 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. The arguments to keep this are based on WP:NACADEMIC, which individuals can meet either if their work has had significant impact, or if they have held a high-level position in a major academic institution. Those editors asserting that these criteria are met have made a lot of assertions to that effect, but very little direct evidence has been provided. Being well-known within a school of thought isn't enough when that school of thought is very niche. Having works published by a major publication house isn't enough unless those works can be shown to have impact in some way. A lot of editors are confusing notability of this individual with the notability of Arminism itself; evidence for the latter isn't necessarily evidence for the former. In sum, the arguments to delete are a lot stronger. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

J. Matthew Pinson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable and the editors involved appear to have a conflict of interest. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 20:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 20:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC Seasider91 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:NACADEMIC #6 as the president of a major institution. StAnselm (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Is Welch College a "major academic institution"? Its current enrollment is only 431 students, and that seems to be the largest the student body has been during all the years we've had an article for it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Supporting Arminism in the 21st Century is like researching How many Angels can fit on the head of a pin. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep To date we have interpreted "major academic institution" as covering any accredited 4-year college of university. Dislike for theological studies should not cause us to exclude this particular academic from coverage. I have to admit there are lots of much more significant academic administrators who lack articles, and many articles on university presidents lack adequate coverage of what their administration did, but that is no reason to not apply the rule here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:NACADEMIC criteria 6 as explained above, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. It baffles me that heads of this level of institution might be considered automatically notable, but heads of highly-ranked public high schools four to six times as large are not. Note that the specific wording of #C6 (in the "Specific criteria notes") is "significant accredited college or university": accreditation alone is not enough. So I disagree with all of the comments above that consider the case purely on this basis. Because the institute is not (I believe) significant, we have to look more carefully at the subject's accomplishments and press. No opinion on whether that more careful look would justify keeping the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's about where I find myself. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bible college is not a major institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Keep. He is one of the more prominent supporters of arminianism. I follow David Eppstein for considering his works as the main criteria of notability. Telikalive (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Arminianism article features a "citation needed" template for where the person in question is named one of the "more prominent supporters". The sources I see for him in that article go straight to his own writings, which aren't inherently notable either. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 22:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your relevant comment Jay Coop. I agree that his inclusion in the "more prominent supporters" of arminianism is not enough substantiated.Telikalive (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Perhaps for historic reasons, theology is often taught in colleges that do not offer secular qualifications. This means that they are smaller, but that should not make a difference, though it might mean that he needed to be judged against heads of department in other institutions, commonly Professors (in the UK sense).  In looking at his publications, I see that several are published by major academic or religious publishers.  This also looks to me sufficient to enable us to keep it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Prof makes it clear that just publishing stuff is not sufficient for notability. The stuff has to be noted by others, and there is insufficient of that in this case, even for theologians. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. All the keep arguments above boil down to "this sort of thing should be notable so I'm going to pretend he meets the standard even though he doesn't". None of them are properly grounded in policy, no actual evidence of notability has surfaced, and despite cosmetic edits over the course of the AfD this article is still entirely self-sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing has convinced me that the school is significant enough to qualify him per WP:PROF, and though theologians can be wiki-notable per WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR like any other specialists, I haven't found evidence to support those claims here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I am familiar with this historical theologian's work. His page has been updated with a citation to a reward that he recently received for his excellence in scholarship from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Arminian theology is still a relevant conversation, considering the rise in neo-Calvinism. Times referred to this as one of the 10 ideas changing the world in 2009 and the New York Times referenced evangelicalism's "Calvinist revival." As a result, several theologians and historians have begun writing on Arminian theology again, such as Roger Olson (Baylor University), Keith Stanglin (Austin Graduate School of Theology), Thomas H. McCall (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), and W. Stephen Gunter (Duke University). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rclark767 (talk • contribs) — Rclark767 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Time and NYT sources you added do not even mention Pinson. Using them to support claims about Pinson looks like WP:SYNTH to me. And the one you cite so prominently in your keep opinion, from the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, includes him only in a single line in a listing of five awardees; that is not the sort of in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The 'Time' and 'NYT' sources demonstrate the relevance of Arminian theology to contemporary issues, namely the rise in neo-Calvinism mentioned in those articles. I fail to see how four other awardees being mentioned in the article by South Eastern Theological Seminary makes the articles any less relevant to Pinson's prominance within historical and theological scholarship. What would Wikipedia gain in any case by removing Pinson's page? Whatever his significance he is certainly not just anybody, which is what we want to avoid junking up Wikipedia with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rclark767 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Addressing the earlier comment that implies that Arminianism is not a reputable subject for academic discourse, akin to angelic pinhead dancing, the editors at the following notable academic presses, which have all published recent monographs about Arminian theology, must not have gotten the memo: Oxford University Press, Baylor University Press, Brill Academic, Mercer University Press, Princeton Theological Monographs, IVP Academic, and Zondervan Academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.cooper.jr. (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)  — Christopher.cooper.jr. (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The citation to the Society of Evangelical Arminians that is made up of scholars, clergymen, and lay people, will not immediatly bring up Pinson's relevance to this sizeable group. One would need to simply type in his name to see how much discussion he has generated and how much of his work has been published on this webpage for the consumption of this audience. To say that Welch is not "significant" is as problematic for either side of this coversation, since Wikipedia does not give a detailed definition of what is meant here. There are small secular institutions that have made an impact in certain areas of scholarship that would be considered "significant" and there are larger institutions (such as degree mills) that are in many way less significant. Lastly, the college is no longer a "Bible college," which, strictly speaking is an undergraduate seminary. The college is now a Christian liberal arts institution, which is partially explanitory of its name change from "Free Will Baptist Bible College" to "Welch College." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rclark767 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The college's academic reputation is established by its accreditation by SACS (which also accredits schools like Duke, Vanderbilt, Emory, Rice, Tulane, and the University of Virginia), its 2019 ranking as 13th best college among Southern Regional Colleges in U.S. News and World Report's Best Colleges, and its approval by the Tennessee State Department of Education for the awarding of bachelor's and master's degrees that lead to state teacher licensure. Also, as recent edits to the entry make clear, numerous theological institutions and organizations have recognized the academic excellence of Welch College, including Southeastern Baptist Seminary, Beeson Divinity School, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Additionally, the institution has joint degree programs and articulation agreements with reputable institutions including Belmont University, Cumberland University, Union University, and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.cooper.jr. (talk • contribs) 02:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The statement above that Pinson's being among the "more prominent supporters" of Arminianism is not well enough substantiated is incorrect. For example, if you do a search in the Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA) website, you will find that only three modern published Arminians are mentioned more than Pinson: Roger Olson, Robert Picirilli, and Brian Abasciano (the Society's chief editor). Further, in response to the above comment that "just publishing stuff is not sufficient for notability; the stuff has to be noted by others, and there is insufficient of that in this case, even for theologians," it is evident from recent edits made to the entry that, in the field of Arminianism, which is the subject of discussion, Pinson's publications have been noted by numerous others, including the SEA, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, Southeastern Seminary, New Orleans Seminary, Beeson Divinity School, Timothy George, Terrence Tiessen, and Roger Olson, among others. Even Calvinists note Pinson as one of the more prominent supporters of their internecine theological opponents, the Arminians. For example, Pinson is the "go-to guy" for Arminianism at the Gospel Coalition (the leading Calvinist site online), and has been interviewed about Calvinism and Arminianism on the Albert Mohler Program, the radio program of one of America's leading Calvinists and president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.cooper.jr. (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, as Arminianism is still a notable topic, this academic is still relevant.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED. And your evidence that he's relevant is? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Epiphyllumlover's assertion of the academic's relevance is based on his statement that "Arminianism is still a notable topic." That is his first premise. His unstated premise, stated by the contributors above, is that the scholars who study Arminian and Calvinist soteriology believe that he is relevant. (I think this premise is accurate. In fact, if you were to poll all the authors of the most recent books on both Arminian and Calvinist soteriology and asked them if Pinson is "relevant" to the scholarly conversation on these topics, they all would say he is.) Thus, (premise 1) Arminianism is "still a notable topic"; (premise 2) Arminianism's major scholars believe Pinson is relevant to that topic; (ergo) Pinson is relevant to that topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.cooper.jr. (talk • contribs) 14:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably keep. Can scholarship and administrative role really be weighted in isolation? Hyperbolick (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Eppstein. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:PROF says that "Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study" - it appears from the sources that Pinson's work, whether or not it is considered a worthy area of study, has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline and has had a substantial impact outside academia per WP:NACADEMIC - while the field may be narrow, - Epinoia (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the evidence for the claim that it seems that Pinson has made an important contribution. The citations to his work in the scholarly literature are negigible compared to those of peers. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC).


 * Delete - Clearly a worthy individual. However, I don't see Welch College as being a "major academic institution" nor is his scholarship sufficiently noted to meet WP:PROF. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have read the debate above and I find the delete votes, citing WP:NACADEMIC as guidance to whether he's likely to be notable, to have a much more firm grounding in evidence and policy. Keep !voters cite a prominence in theology, in particular arminianism, but no evidence was supplied that he is noted amongst peers or especially recognised as such in independent sources. I also concur that the college in question doesn't qualify as a "major institution", and I see no evidence that the term is defined anywhere. As an aside, it would probably be worth nailing down at WP:NACADEMIC what that actually means. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article mentions recognized independent appraisal or recognition: Timothy George, Terrance L. Tiessen, Roger E. Olson, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Telikalive (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Why delete an article on a well-published author and theologian?  This is precisely the kind of information people expect Wikipedia to have.Strandvue (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is discussed above. As explained, neither having published many works nor being a theologian meets our notability requirements which have also been referenced. Sorry. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2019 (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.