Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Garrison (theologian)


 * 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. While the notability of an author may be measured by the reach of the books they have authored, there is definitely no consensus here that that is the case for the subject of this article, and no other well-supported claim to notability has been made. Vanamonde (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Jim Garrison (theologian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

When I first  read this I  actually  thought  I  was reading  a hoax. But no, this person  does exist and is founder and/or director of a couple of universities that  do  not  appear to  be mainstream. There are a lot of important unsubstantiated claims in  what  is  now a totally  unreferenced BLP, and simply  stubbing  it would still leave a violation  of  the BLP  policy. The odd thing is that apart from  a YouTube and handful of articles he has written in Huff,  I can't find anything  on the Internet about  him  that  adds up  to  notability. Strange... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a Jim Garrison who writes a lot about Dewey. Is it the same? If not Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC).
 * No,, clearly not the same Jim.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. At least most of the books are mainstream. The Darkness of God: Theology After Hiroshima. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1990. is by a major conservative theological and religious publisher, and is in 285 libraries, pretty good for the subject. The others are in similar numbers of libraries, and not by cult publishers. Despite the unusual career, he does meet WP:PROF as an influence on his subject. We have had an unfortunate tendency to discount unconventional academics in religious studies. I share this a little, and might have said delete if not for the Erdmans book.  DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just being in libraries does not confer notability. There has to be evidence of impact on others. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC).


 * Keep as several sources are now cited, including a book I just added. This needs to be expanded and improved. It may well be that offline sources are needed here. But this already looks notable to me. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My recent addition was reverted, and is now being discussed on the article talk page. I ask anyone considering the notability of Garrison to check the history for the citation added yesterday as an additional relevant source. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete He's President of a non-bluelinked "university" that I can source only to press releases - it self describes as an "e-learning platform" in it's 2017 press release. He writes books that libraries own, but our standard WP:AUTHOR is that subject writes books that others write about, review, and cite.  I am not seeing that other theologians encounter his work, or that it gets reviews.  A proquest news archive search on Garrison + "The Darkness of God" produces nothing.  A JSTOR search produces several listings in "books received," but no reviews and no citations.  Fails WP:PROFESSOR and WP:CREATIVE, frankly, he looks FRINGE to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * also, one of the few sources is University Herald, a newish, online publication  with 419 twitter followers.  It may not be a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - per improvements made since nom. Good sources and book ref.BabbaQ (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The improvements have been the addition of subject's published books to the article, but merely publishing a book does not establish notability.  The book has to be reviewed or discussed in RS or to be widely cited.    Meanwhile the only two citations on the page are to The Sociable and University Herald.   Not a single WP:RS has been found, and no editor in this discussion has even asserted that reliable, secondary sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neither of the two sources in the article right now are adequate for WP:NBIO.  The article in The Sociable is about Ubiquity University, and only has a single quote from Garrison.  The University Herald source, likewise, only mentions Garrison once, in association with the university.  I also found what's basically directory listing in Huff Post.  None of those, alone or in aggregate, are enough to meet WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per . I still can't see how anyone can reasonably state this passes WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2018 (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.