Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon K. Newton


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Jon K. Newton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable author. Does not meet either WP:PROF or the GNG. One of his 3 books is in only 22 libraries; one in 7, the 3rd in none.  DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.fbs.org.au/abrauthor.html http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/17455251/18/2 http://www.anzats.edu.au/whoswho.html http://www.eptaonline.com/journal-articles/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/heyj.12034/abstract The latest book was only just released so it is unsurprising that it is not easy to find it in libraries yet, although see http://library.harvest.edu.au/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=65695&query_desc=kw%2Cwrdl%3A%20Newton%2C%20Jon. His books are in more libraries than is suggested DGG (above), but these are generally libraries owned by private theological colleges which are not linked with worldcat.org see http://library.emmaus.edu.au/cgi-bin/koha/opac-MARCdetail.pl?biblionumber=9409 for example. He has been published in numerous scholarly research journals, these are listed independently in ebsco's database and ProQuest's database. If it will help I can include ISSN numbers of these journals. These journals are found in or are given access to by any decent college or university library which has a religion department. --Windupboy82 (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * delete as per nom. I can find no independent coverage of Newton.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * do not delete He is a theological scholar, so it is not strange that people are finding it more difficult to find independent info on him. But for the record here is a brief list of independent sites which cover him:
 * — Windupboy82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * do not delete This academic clearly meets the Notability criteria. 1) He has earned a PhD at Deakin University and serves as the Head of Research and doctoral supervisor at a Theological Seminary; 2) He has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association i.e. he is a director of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Theological Schools. His general notoriety is clearly high within his field and this is reflected in the fact that he has been published in a wide variety of academic journals and by two major theological publishers. --Orinsa1118 (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * — Orinsa1118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - the keep votes above do not demonstrate notability. The criteria are listed at WP:PROF, and the subject doesn't appear to meet any of them. StAnselm (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- While theological colleges tend to be smaller than universities, dean of research, is a senior post, higher than professor (in the non-US sense). Serving on the board of anzats also points to his notability.  The article does seem to have a lot of redlinks, but that may be due to the deficiencies of WP in not having articles on significant subjects.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a large corpus of "AfD case law" that has established that President, Chancellor (or vices thereof) and sometimes Provost satisfy WP:PROF c6 and, moreover, these must be at "a major academic institution". Dean at a small seminary does not satisfy c6. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC).


 * Keep -- Criterion 3 of WP:PROF states: "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)." He clearly meets this criterion. He is not only a member but a director at the most prestigious theological scholar society in Australia, i.e. ANZATS. --Orinsa1118 (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not !vote more than once. Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
 * — Orinsa1118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Objective evaluation against WP:PROF guidelines indicate that the subject falls far short of notability. The usual criterion is c1, but David (nom) shows that Newton's books have very low holdings. Likewise, his scholarship has barely been noted: only 2 GS citations for his cumulative body of work. (Note that Windupboy82 and Orinsa1118, whose edit styles are very similar, are under the misunderstanding that publications confer notability, when in fact it is citations to a scholar's publications that matter.) The other claims, e.g. being a director of ANZATS, a seminary schools association, or being a dean do not satisfy c6. It appears the 2 SPA accounts are jointly pushing this article and the one on Harvest Bible College, where Newton is on faculty – smells of possible COI. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2015 (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.