Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Van Dolson


 * 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 (Keep votes only stated article did not qualify for speedy deletion ) Citi Cat   ♫ 01:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Leo Van Dolson

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

May not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Contested speedy that would have also been contested as a proposed deletion. Contributor believes that the subject's contributions as an author are enough to establish notability. At least the editor that placed the request for speedy deletion does not. Sancho 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is not a candidate for speedy deletion, as there is an assertion of notability: the subject has published three books. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 04:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is clearly not a good speedy candidate. There are already sufficient claims of significance that an A7 simply does not apply. But there are more sources to be found out there. Try this google scholar search and this corresponding google books search. I am confident there is enough here to domonstrate notability and significantly improve the article. DES (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The first 2 comments are ample reason why WP:CSD doesn't apply, but that's not the standard to be applied here. I differ with DES above: Thirteen hits at google scholar and twelve at google books doesn't connote "notability", you'd be hard pressed to find any professor who cannot achieve those numbers (see more below). This guy just doesn't pass WP:BIO, WP:N; his books for all we know were vanity press, that they're not available from Amazon.com makes me a little more than suspicious that they may be. If this guy were a college professor (see the high hurdle at WP:PROF he'd have been gone in nothng flat, that he's a theologian makes the article hardly more keepable. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit that the size of the search results alone is not proof of notability. The results of the regular google search convince me that these books are being used regualrly by a significant fraction of Seventh Day Adventists, but it is unleasr which if any of those hits represent reliable sources. Lots of them seem to eb local church newsletters and the like. But when i see someoen who seems to have significant piopular following and also more than a modicum of academic discussion, and when his books are being cited by others, i strongly suspect that the subject is notable enough for an article. DES (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment the wrong standards are being discussed --he's just a religious author. he's not a college professor, and he's not a theologian. theologians are scholars. He's a missionary who has written some simple books summarizing his church's belief, and should be judged by that standard. but I'd still say Delete because there is no independent evidence that any of the books are in the least notable. DGG (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As per DES Harlowraman 20:08, 5 August 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.