Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Driscoll


 * 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 keep, mentioned in multiple reliable sources. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:39Z 

Mark Driscoll

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable theologian and author per WP:BIO. I couldn't find anything on him in a quick Google News test, and the other sources I found (or that are cited) seem to fail WP:SPS.RJASE1 Talk  15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Driscoll is a well recognized name in church growth circles, has authored or co-authored four well received books in the past three years, and is recognized by many as a leader in the missional church movement. Some may not agree with him and he may not be notable as a theologian per se, but he is certainly not trivial in nature.Kwitt3 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC) — Kwitt3 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What are you talking about? Try your google news test again sir: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22mark+driscoll%22&btnG=Search+News forehand
 * That's a little disingenuous, as none of those Mark Driscolls seem to be this person. RJASE1 Talk  19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:BIO "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject." Try checking the links listed on this person's page, and those of Mars Hill church. Also, try a Google search for "Mark Driscoll Mars Hill" and you will find an extensive amount of articles by reliable sources that do not fail WP:SPS.Squidge37 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a bizarre RFD. Driscoll is highly notable, frequently noted and widely quoted. I can only assume that the RFD is from someone who merely disagrees with him ... but if that were a criterion for deletion, we'd have no Osama Bin Laden article!

Mark is an up and coming theologian... he seems to be hot at this point in time. You could delete him now... and add him back in when his bio gets larger. I was searching for information on Mark and found that this information was helpful. I would leave it up. Plenty of other sites have content on this individual... maybe Wikipedia is not the place to search for notable people? I am not slamming Wikipedia, I love this site. I just think that Mark is not defined by Mars Hill or Acts 29 entries. Thank you.

So, have we established that Mark Driscoll's page is not fit for deletion? The evidence seems to support this being unnecessary and unwarrented. Squidge37 15:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 
 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Some of the GoogleNews results are clearly about him, and that is enough for Notability. What I may think of his theology is not relevant. DGG 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking solely at GoogleNews isn't the best test because that's very centered very recent news.  Looking at Google in general brings up quite a few hits both on Driscoll and on his Confessions of a Reformission Rev. book, which also seems to show solid sales at Amazon.  Mwelch 01:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. per above.  props to the nominator for citing WP:SPS Mystache 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article itself links to articles from Salon.com, the Seattle Times, and Christianity Today. That alone establishes notability.  I hadn't heard of Mark Driscoll before I came across this AfD, but simply reading the article about him closely tells me this AfD isn't nessessary. Fixer1234 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per reasons above. Lemonsawdust 04:38, 19 April 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.