Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Loftus


 * 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. Consensus is that notability has not been demonstrated. Michig (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

John W. Loftus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet notability guidelines. Article largely written by the subject. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – I didn't find any better reliable, third party sources substantially covering this subject. He appears to fail WP:BASIC requirements. JFHJr (㊟) 06:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delelte –Keep the article. It's reliable. And he's an important figure. If John did add something then I see nothing that doesn't describe him. There are Christians who would favor deletion simply because they disagree with him. User:Franky32 — Franky32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:26, 16 December 2011‎ (UTC).
 * Comment: how do you suppose this subject meets WP:GNG requirements of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources? Your position seems to be that the article is reliable, which doesn't speak to the question of notability. JFHJr (㊟) 07:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: John recently linked his article on his blog. It's likely that single purpose accounts will pop up during the deletion debate.  --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:N. The two blog references are useless and the google books link just proves that the book exists but does not establish notability. Zlqchn (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I was surprised to see Loftus' name at an AfD discussion - I own two of his books, and assumed he would be clearly notable - but after searching I have regretfully concluded that he doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. There are plenty of blog reviews (including some by folk I know), but nothing that's not WP:SPS, and no news hits either.
 * I'd like to see this article kept; I think Loftus' story is a fascinating one, but he is, sadly, not notable. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – Harizotoh9 said it perfectly - he doesn't meet even one of the notability criteria.Trishm (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delelte - Keep the article.  John Loftus has actively contributed to the on-going discussion for the best part of 20-plus years regarding theism and atheism within contemporary society.  He has written and edited a number of books on the subject of religious belief and its inconstant and inconsistent consequences for the modern community.   Loftus's contribution to the discourse on the significant and essential debate on religion vis-a-vis irreligion meets the notability criteria for inclusion as a separate entry into Wikipedia.  Further supporting details are to be added to the Wiki entry.  Papalinton (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Papalinton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Your comment seems to get at WP:SCHOLAR and maybe WP:AUTHOR, but can you provide reliable third party sources that support notability? Otherwise, the last sentence there sounds a lot like WP:PLEASEDONT, which isn't a reason to keep. JFHJr (㊟) 04:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment, all the references are blogs and other self published sources, making them useless in establishing notability. Zlqchn (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2011 (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.