Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Skinner


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Cyde Weys 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Skinner

 * Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Only one book of unknown readership listed. Arbusto 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Worldcat, one library owns the book listed. Very hard to search for other books by the same author as there is an American author named Jonathan Skinner who has written a ton of books on economic issues. Thatcher131 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps delete this page as NN and create a new article featuring the more academically known economist? Arbusto 04:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as vanity non-notable. But note that his church also has a page, Widcombe Baptist Church, as do a host of other local churches of no particular significance.  A major cleanup project!  Slowmover 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Changing "vanity" to "non-notable" per the fair criticism of Uncle Davey below.
 * Thanks for that. Yes, she did do a Widcombe church page, and she did the Skinner page, but I take it that these are matters she happens to know about. Since she also did this page Tota_pulchra_es, a page reflecting on Mary and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is contrary to Baptist and other Protestant theology, so it is unlikely that she has POV issues, whereas there is systematic deletion of Christian related articles going on all over Wikipedia. I think it is one thing when there are two sides trying on the one hand to increase Christian content and on the other to delete it, but it's a pity if the contributions of someone who had no such intention, and was merely writing about something local to her, should be caught up in this. Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Slowmover 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability is further established. the.crazy.russian  vent here 20:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep' I know I created this page, but I believe Jonathan Skinner is well known in many circles in Britain, and is an important figure in evangelical teaching and the FIEC. He writes many articles for the evangelical times and is a renowned scientist. He has given many talks and lectures attended by wide audiences. Delete if you wish, but these are my reasons for proposing to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbyemery (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your comments. If you would like to strengthen the article by adding information that will independently establish (outside your own opinion) his importance, feel free to do so. Check the guidelines for help on verifiability and inclusion of biographies.  Things like newspaper accounts of his lectures, book reviews (if he has written any) will help establish verifiability and notability. The AfD discussion runs for 5 days before closing, and if you have made significant improvement you can ask for a reconsideration. Thatcher131 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable. --Sugarpie Honeybunch 21:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you added some articles he wrote. That is useful, but it would be more useful to list articles about him. Thatcher131 22:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 *  is a possible sock puppet. First edit ever was to add 4 articles to the Skinner page and second edit was this vote. The user has not made a third edit. Arbusto 04:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable biography as it currently stands. No discussion regarding attitudes, viewpoints, criticism, notability amongst peers, etc.  Book reviews and citations of influential articles that Skinner has (co-)authored would be a good start. The justification for keep above is weak - in which circles is Skinner well known and for what?  Why is Skinner important in evangelical teaching and to whom?  These are questions that researcher may well ask, so the article should make an effort to provide answers.   (aeropagitica)   23:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per (aeropagitica)  OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notabl bio. --Ter e nce Ong 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete article has not established notablility.--Jersey Devil 10:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sugarpie Honeybunch is not a sockpuppet of Abbyemery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.62.225 (talk • contribs)
 * I would be curious to know how an unsigned anonymous user with an IP address belonging to a German cable company would know this. Thatcher131 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That user was me, I could not sign in as I was on a school computer. I assure you that I have not created any sockpuppets. That would be a waste of time and no doubt someone would notice. Abbyemery 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you couldn't log in, but thanks for clarifying. Thatcher131 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If I had signed in I would have been spotted by the teacher not doing the work that I was supposed to be doing, and I would not have been able to make the edit at all! Abbyemery 18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Me again. Sorry that I'm still fighting this, but I really believe that this guy is notable. - his website, featuring information about the book he wrote and a radio program he recorded for BBC radio 4 .  - a page providing information on his book.
 * I think it would help more if the links were not all self-promotional. Except for one review of one book, nobody seems to care about him outside his immediate circle.  Slowmover 18:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Slowmover, I don't understand what kind of link you want? Ask me and I'll try to search for it. I'm not being deliberately ignorant, but I'm still at school. Abbyemery 18:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We are looking for evidence that other people beyond Skinner himself and possibly a small circle of parishoners and fans finds him insteresting enough to write about. If 2 people think he's important, then he probably isn't; if ten thousand people think he is important, he problably is. The dividing line is invisible and fuzzy. To help the wikipedia community evaluate specific people, we look for outside evidence. See below. Thatcher131 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidence Lexis/Nexis search covering the past 12 months finds several columns written by Skinner for the Western Daily Press and some letters to the editor replying to him in one way or another.  He takes on Richard Dawkins, who had just run a 2-part BBC special declaring that religion was immoral, and he defended tony Blair, who was criticized by the press for saying that God would judge the rightness of the Iraq invasion.  Also a book review that thought Skinner's book proceeded from a logical fallacy and would only be convincing to the already convinced.  (I can't link to Lexis/Nexis but I can provide the dates and page numbers; I don't know if the Western Daily Press has a web presence or not.)  I have not voted yet, leaning toward keep but would like to know what others think in light of this Lexis/Nexis search. Based on the fact that he has published 50+ newspaper columns in addition to a column in the Evangelical Times, and because we have dozens of articles on the Expanded Universe (Star Wars), we can keep this one too.  Thatcher131 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good evidence, hadn't seen that. I'd add and re-clarify that he writes for the Evangelical Times which has a circulation of about 40 000. I believe that he is therefore notable as a journalist. People disagree? Abbyemery 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Being a journalist is not notable in itself.  It hurts a bit that his only book review comes from a publication he writes for.  Slowmover 19:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice one Slowmover. But if you search, you'll find lots of reviews of the book (The Edge of Known Reality and Beyond) coming from independent reviewers/publications. Being a journalist is not notable, but being a notable journalist is something else altogether. Abbyemery 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief, I missed the fact that "Evangelical Press" is the publisher of his book. So I don't find any independent reviews, just what appears to be his own site, the publisher's site, the sites of booksellers and some blogs.....Slowmover 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * weak keep apparently somewhat notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidence See the article's talk page. He seems to be notable and quotable in and around Bath but I didn't find evidence of wider penetration; not to say it isn't there, but the burden is on Abby and I've done all I can.  Just for the sake of argument I raise this point  on the value of importance as a criteria.  His existence and viewpoints can certainly be verified based on his public writings. Thatcher131 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He's verifiable, seems somewhat notable and exists. Which is more than you can say for all the crappy pokemon characters that have articles. Jcuk 01:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Although there should also be a disambiguation page, as there is also an American Professor of economics in print and an ecopoet both of whom share that name and each feature higher in Google, it has to be admitted, although this is no accurate measure of notability. I disagree with the point about it being a vanity article as there is no evidence that the user who created the article has any POV-bending connexions with the subject. Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable Cursive 23:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks Verifiable & Notable. Nothing to lose to keep.--Michaelwmoss 08:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason at all to delete this Itake 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, it's me again, I'm a bit of a newbie to this and I'm just wondering: is the page kept purely on votes for delete or keep, despite the fact that a lot of the delete votes came in before evidence was displayed? Abbyemery 07:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Only one vote per person is allowed, but the decision is not made by the volume of votes (therefore, multiple votes by one person make no difference anyway).  After 5 days, unless it looks like more time is required, an Admin will review the debate, decide if there was a consensus, and act on the consensus.  This looks like no consensus to me (IMHO), so it's likely that this page will not be deleted.  Slowmover 15:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Seems to be notable but could use more support. Nigelthefish 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep - more or less notable and totally harmless. ♥ ♥ ♥  Gubb   ✍  15:28, 22 March 2006 (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.