Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark DeVine


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark DeVine
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-Notable author that fails WP:N. Page's promotional. CerealKillerYum (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC.- MrX 15:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:BASIC. no reviews of his book found. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With a PhD in 1968, it might be soon enough. Unscintillating (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:  
 * Note the corrected spelling in the above templates. 12:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I found several independent book reviews for Replant on Google web, and several short bios on Google books.  I didn't think the article was promotional, but I did some minor copy editing anyway.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't find anythign on JSTOR (although I was using the correct spelling) User:Unscintillating, I assume tthat we are talking reviews in non-scholarly periodicals, and WP:AUTHOR, not WP:PROFESSOR.  Do you have time to  add a couple of those reviews to the page.  'Note that the only 2 sources now on the page come lead to a hosting site churchcommunicationspro.com, and were perhaps part of a blog hosted there.  We really do need some sources to keep this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added three citations to the article. Unscintillating (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Problem is, the "David S. Dockery; Ray Van Neste; Jerry Tidwell (2011)." ciation is to the list of authors in a book of essays.  Yes, our man DeVine wrote one of the essays, but, no, author's mini bio in a published book is not a WP:RS.  The  "Smith, Samuel C.," source is a dead link.  Ping me if you can fix the link.  the link to "Gospel Coalition is also a dead link.  Ping me if you can fix it.   But, is any of them a book review?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am removing the old pair of dead links to what appears to have been a blog post. I did source a similar statement to the St. Louis Post Dispatch.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I found and corrected errors in the two URLs.I'm not sure what your point is about the WP:RS. How is this anything other than a reliable bio?I also don't understand the question asking if these are book reviews.  I cited one review for each of the two entries in the Bibliography.  One is a critique by someone from Liberty College, and one review is by a pastor of a church in New York City and both are in-depth.  I found the critique itself cited online.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the reviews is published by The Gospel Coalition online, problem is, Devine is a regular author at The Gospel coalition . Although it is a book review, it does not count towards notability because it is not an independent source.  Book reviews are a simple way to establish notability for an AUTHOR.  The Smith review in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society looks like it is a blue chip source.  What I cannot find are enough book reviews (3 in independent sources is the minimum) in independent sources.  Or sufficient SIGCOV of him and his work in secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete TOOSOON. He has not done enough yet to make him notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2017 (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.