Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence M. Vance (2nd nomination)


 * 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 ZsinjTalk 04:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Laurence M. Vance

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Biographical article for author and academic of insufficient notability. Subject is a self-published author and adjunct professor at Pensacola Junior College, a small, two-year community college. There is no evidence that subject meets any of the six criteria listed at Notability (academics) or that, per Notability (people), the person "has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

Also, the article does not "rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and, as such, does not meet the requirements of Verifiability.

This article was previously listed for AfD debate at Articles for deletion/Laurence M. Vance. The result was "No consensus; keep for now but revisit later." There has not been one single edit to this article since that Dec. 12 AfD closure. Deletion is now appropriate. -- Satori Son 14:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article's subject is still the topic of notable discussion, as the article notes in the "Notes" section. Please see, , and . The assertion in this nom that the article has not been updated since the last AfD was closed is correct, however interested parties should note that the three sources I link above were added during the last AfD. Thus, while the nom assertion is technically true, it is not the case that this article has lain untouched since the previous nom brought up the concerns that are again raised here. Vance is not "extremely notable," but his work has been the topic of notable discussion and has been published in notable venues (not including his own press). Let's remember that notability is generally permanent. DickClarkMises 14:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Respectfully, the previous AfD discussion did not establish sufficient notability; the result was "No consensus". As such, the sufficiency of the subject's notability is still a very open question which should be carefully evaluated by each participant here. -- Satori Son 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I very much agree that notability was not established in the last AfD result and evidence should be weighed for the same. The nom seemed to indicate that because there had been no changes since the last AfD's close that somehow the "no consensus" result meant that "no changes after X amount of time = mandate to delete." DickClarkMises 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete with no prejudice against re-creation if his controversial views achieve more widespread coverage. An interesting dude, who claims the Confederate side of the Civil War was a "just war" and that todays politicians using the cloak of Christianity to justify going to war are wrong, a view congruent with the National Association of Evangelicals, but contrary to most fundamentalist right-wing televangelists. He needs to get on The Daily Show with John Stewart. References from books he publishes fail WP:A. Edison 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is unclear to me how non-controversial assertions derived from self-published works fail WP:ATT. According to the pertinent section of that proposed policy, here, there is nothing wrong with using such sources, especially since the assertions are not about any third parties. DickClarkMises 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe I misspoke. I should have said that comments about him in books he self-publishes cannot establish that he has encyclopedic notability to satisfy WP:N. If his notability was otherwise demonstrated, as by multiple substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, than his own writings could certainly be used as article content to tell more about him. Edison 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep- notability, but not much. Eaomatrix 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncertain but what I am certain about is that he is not notable as an academic he is adjunct instructor in accounting at Pensacola Junior College--not even a full-time instructor, let alone an assistant professor even. Part time instructors are the bottom strata--or the place where you find the absolute beginners. If he is notable it is either as a publisher, or an author of popular works about bible translations, or as a author with an unusual version of history. I do not think his historical work is notable, as it have been reviewed only with his narrow circle--if the wider public gets hold of it, then it might become so.  The other points still need checking. DGG 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you say, the article ought not (and doesn't) assert that Vance is notable for his accounting classes. He is a notable writer who has been the subject of reliable, independent sources. His day job is mentioned as a biographical detail. DickClarkMises 20:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep as a publisher (Vance Publications reprints can being obtained by libraries: ) and a writer/commentator. John Vandenberg 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Having looked through the works reprinted by "Classic Reprints", an imprint of Vance Publications, I believe an article about the publisher is warranted. These works include notes by Laurence Vance, and are in use. John Vandenberg 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, agree with Edison entirely -- Samir 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity publisher, junior college adjunct "Instructor" not even a "Professor", and the degrees are not verifiable, with no advanced degree claims, he could have 4 B.A. degrees for all that is said. Colleges in smaller communities will take just about anybody to teach at a cheap rate and this guy really has no claim to notability except perhaps for self-promotion. Plus what he teaches, accounting, has no connection to what he is publishing (slef publishing that is).--Mikerussell 17:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC) the books listed in the article have no ISBNs, and
 * Comment No one has claimed that Vance's instructorship has anything to do with his notability. The article makes the case that he is a notable writer whose works have been discussed in independent, third party sources, which they have. Does anyone actually want to attack those sources, which are what I, as the author of the article, presented as evidence of notability? It seems to me that most of the "delete" votes are just that: votes, and nothing more. I hope that other editors will consider this entry on its merits rather than based on the fact that many of those who have voted here don't care for the idea of an accounting instructor being notable for something unrelated to his teaching. DickClarkMises 18:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it is a bit misleading to portray Vance's work and works about him as mostly self-published. Look at these, for example:, , , , , , and . DickClarkMises 18:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to Comment: You seem to be almost the sole author of this article, and that seems to add weight to a Delete vote, especially since the original article is not new, having been on wikipedia for 10 months almost. In the links you cite above, he is described as different things from a "Greek Teacher", to a "book Dealer" to a "free-lance writer" to "instructor at Pensacola Bible Institute" which reeks of non-notability to me. A stable public image is not presented, and he is clearly not qualified to be regarded as an academic on wikipedia. Also, what are his degrees, as I asked above? Where are they from? What are they in? What excatly do they have to relate to his books? All you offered is some third party blogs/websites, that strike me as a clearly low-circulation, non-scholarly (at least not peer-reviewed scholarly), privately funded organizations. I say Strong Delete after doing a little more thinking about it. If you are so certain he is notable, then in the future, he can be added, but I think there is an overt tendency here to try to use wikipedia to confer notability, or to simply include a personal favorite of a wikipedia editor, as oppsed to simply including a notworthy figure that adds substance and value to this website. --Mikerussell 20:07, 8 May 2007 (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.