Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim West (biblical scholar)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Jim West (biblical scholar)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Clear fail of overliance on primary sources, a lack of general coverage and coverage which is not significant. The subject is not notable in his field except for the claim off having the number one bible blog other blogsites. The "twitter controversy" is entirely sourced by twitter is a copy right violation of direct quotes from twitter interaction that received little to no coverage from other independent sources. Also fails WP:BLP and refers to the subject as a Biblical Scholar but then holds a doctorate from an unaccredited university and centres more on his blogging rather than achievements as an academic. >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 21:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. >>  Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 21:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not yet decided on deletion here, but the arguments offered in the nomination are not very good. If it could be established from secondary sources that he had the most popular biblical studies blog that would probably would be a valid claim of notability, regardless of whether it constituted an achievement as an academic per se. I think the problem with the Twitter controversy section isn't so much copyright as original research.Jahaza (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree - if I ran Earwig's copyright tool the copyright video is bad across the whole article. Additionally the rankings are based on Alexa searches according to the blog. Retail rankings are not considered reliable or appropriate. Furthermore, if this article is presenting the subject of the topic as an academic, they don't meet WP:NACADEMIC. If being presented as a general person or theologian, WP:BLP applies. I don't see how that could be met for an academic from an uncredited institution, who has not appeared in peer reviewed material or been quoted by others. >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 22:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is not a notability guideline, so it can't be "met". My whole point is that he might be notable as a writer (of a blog) rather than as an academic. But of course "an academic from an uncredited institution, who has not appeared in peer reviewed material" can meet a notability guideline other than WP:BIO, because not being notable in one way is no obstacle to being notable in a different way. Jahaza (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. GS shows negligible scholarly impact, so no pass of WP:Prof. Other social media flim-flam does not pass GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC).
 * Weak keep -- He seems to have a significant number of publications, some at least from reputable academic publishers, but many (including commentaries on most biblical books are published by Quartz Hill, a great deal of whose output is by this one author. Nevertheless the article is a bad one; it almost feels like an ATTACK article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just publishing stuff does not contribute to notability, see WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 10:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is always useful to do a WP:BEFORE. This little exercise yields the following sources which either describe the subject's advocacy or theology or directly interview him, and which include: NBC News (2012) (not a local station, but the national news desk); National Public Radio (2006); The Christian Post (2004); the Associated Press via The Times-Tribune (Corbin) (2004).  Internationally, the subject has been quoted or interviewed by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the UK (2012) and by AMEN bijbelmagazine (2011) of the Netherlands.  All these sources have been incorporated in the article now.  The argument that the article is supported "social media" simply does not hold water when the subject of the WP:BIO is cited by NPR or by the BBC. XavierItzm (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article originally had a large section sourced by social media to be fair. This is no longer the case. NBC news source is not WP:SIGCOV, neither is the The Times-Tribune. Has an appraisal been done of AMEN bijbelmagazine to prove its a reliable source? The article is still full of blogs and self-written posts about West's beliefs. >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 08:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment has authored a few papers in GScholar, what is his impact factor like? Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Has a total of 6 citations on GS. Tiny, tiny, even for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC).


 * Comment is an author of books published by well known academic and theology imprints and editorial houses on both sides of the Atlantic such as Edwin Mellen Press (2007); Equinox Publishing (Sheffield) (2016); Wipf and Stock (2022); Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (2017). His books have been reviewed in academic journals also both in Europe and in the US  such as The Journal of Ecclesiastical History (2019); Henoch (journal) (2019); and Zwingliana (2008).  His work is cited by Journal of Early Modern History (2020).  Meets WP:AUTHOR both for being quoted by academic journals —as well as being cited or directly quoted by all of the mass media sources cited a few paragraphs above and which include NPR (2006), the BBC (2012), etc. XavierItzm (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per XavierItzm. StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per XavierItzm's sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with his books having been reviewed in academic journals as detailed by XavierItzm above so deletion is unnecessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2022 (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.