Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Rollins


 * 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. v/r - TP 01:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter Rollins

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article fails to meet WP:PROF and setting up Ikon (which has no article) is not by itself a rationale under WP:BIO. A search on Google News finds some mentions in relation to Ikon but does not appear sufficient to expect the notability criteria to be satisfied in the near future. Fæ (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This "post-modern Christian thinker" has yet to achieve notability on the basis of his published work. Maybe he will in the future. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC).
 * keep Rollins' is a very significant figure in the emerging church movement and postmodern Christianity.
 * keep&mdash;rollins's thought has been discussed at length in a number of (arguably) reliable sources; i'm making a case here for WP:AUTHOR #1. i say "arguably" because these are evangelical publishing houses, and two of them, moody and church publishing, i'm not that familiar with.  on the other hand, despite the low quality of some of their catalog, zondervan on its academic side is generally pretty good.  also, wp:author#1 does talk about "peers or successors," and these authors are clearly peers.  here are four (the citation maker points these links at one page, but searching in book for rollins will show the extent of the discussion):
 * these are in addition to the books in the article which are listed under the heading Books dealing with Rollins' Thought. there are also plenty of mentions of rollins in other sources which suggest to me that in discussions of the Emerging church movement of which rollins is a part, he's taken seriously and is seen as someone whose views must be acknowledged. despite that, i've kept the list here to books with at least moderately extended discussions.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree there may be a rationale to keep under GNG/BIO grounds rather than PROF, though with these religious publishers I am wary of the walled garden phenomenon. If a couple of these sources are well respected, say by examining GScholar, then the rationale starts to look credible. Thanks for doing the research. --Fæ (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * these are in addition to the books in the article which are listed under the heading Books dealing with Rollins' Thought. there are also plenty of mentions of rollins in other sources which suggest to me that in discussions of the Emerging church movement of which rollins is a part, he's taken seriously and is seen as someone whose views must be acknowledged. despite that, i've kept the list here to books with at least moderately extended discussions.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree there may be a rationale to keep under GNG/BIO grounds rather than PROF, though with these religious publishers I am wary of the walled garden phenomenon. If a couple of these sources are well respected, say by examining GScholar, then the rationale starts to look credible. Thanks for doing the research. --Fæ (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * these are in addition to the books in the article which are listed under the heading Books dealing with Rollins' Thought. there are also plenty of mentions of rollins in other sources which suggest to me that in discussions of the Emerging church movement of which rollins is a part, he's taken seriously and is seen as someone whose views must be acknowledged. despite that, i've kept the list here to books with at least moderately extended discussions.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree there may be a rationale to keep under GNG/BIO grounds rather than PROF, though with these religious publishers I am wary of the walled garden phenomenon. If a couple of these sources are well respected, say by examining GScholar, then the rationale starts to look credible. Thanks for doing the research. --Fæ (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 06:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've never heard of Church Publishing, but Moody has a strong reputation. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous publications. Meets WP:CREATIVE. Nitalake (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2011 (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.