Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Clayton (theologian)


 * 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. Nakon 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Philip Clayton (theologian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find any independent reliable sources about this person. Sam Walton (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep holds an endowed/named chair at Claremont, so he automatically passes WP:PROF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of coverage. I put "Philip Clayton" + Claremont into a google news search, and came up with ppages of substantive stuff.  Page could certainly use expansion. But notability is not in question.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory, could you give examples of some of this coverage? Sam Walton (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as the holder of a named chair and author of a number of academic works. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the necessary criterion is satisfied. (the actual notability is as an expert in his subject, but we regard the named chair as a convenient shortcut, since it's a reliable indication of that).  DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Holder of a named academic chair. Carrite (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment per WP:PROF: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Does anyone actually have any reliable sources to use in this article? If not, saying "has a named chair" carries little weight. Sam Walton (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2015 (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.