Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip H. Wiebe (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Phillip H. Wiebe
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject does not meet WP:BIO, WP:NACADEMICS or WP:AUTHOR. This was nominated and kept a decade ago but the arguments for keeping the article -- namely that he is a dean of a department at a minor Canadian university and a published author -- would not pass muster today. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 01:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep seems he's been quoted on the topics hinted at in the very terse bio we have on him in multiple mainstream newspapers on at least two continents:
 * http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/02/27/b-c-scholar-studies-mystical-visions/
 * http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/04/09/shroud-of-turin-exhibit-headed-to-calgary
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/faith/cloth-of-gold-the-glittering-return-of-the-turin-shroud-1925955.html
 * http://www.canada.com/life/Jesus+Joseph+Mary+junk+food/6300753/story.html
 * ... and with multiple RS'es, the GNG is at least nominally met, although I'm not sure any of the referenced SNGs are. Do we have an SNG for parapsychology theology experts? (Note: I dropped the "H." in the Google News search, and these were all first page hits) Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe delete for now as although Books, browser, Highbeam and Scholar found links, I'm not seeing convincingly better. Pinging past AfD commenter and  who seems interested with these subjects.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. 2 major books from Oxford University Press with the most widely held one in 698 libraries is very substantial for academic theology even of a somewhat popular nature, and  enough to meet WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. But there are several additional books as well, which I/ve added.  Additional reviews are needed to verify  DGG ( talk ) 10:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit less trustful of the library stats for OUP books than you are, I must say. OUP figures in the "blind buying" profile of many major US university libraries (and perhaps UK and Canada as well) which means that they routinely receive, through their jobbers, anything that comes out of OUP. I'm not saying that this person isn't notable, but I feel cautious about using WorldCat to do anything but indicate the extremes - the middle ground is pretty grey. To whit, there is a book of mine published by ALA publishing that I'm sure that no one in their right mind has read, but it is in almost 450 libraries per WC. Another book of mine, which really should have been discarded by now, is still in nearly 1200. I advise large lumps of salt. LaMona (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment As a former pupil of Dr. Wiebe, I will not comment on what should happen, but I will point out that several eitors have improved he article's references since it was nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant scholar, merits better article than this. And User:Walter Görlitz, although, certainly, the best way to keep this article up is to add references, just as you say,  you are not only entitled to support a scholar you studied under, you have actual knowledge of his work that especially qualifies you to do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 5 November 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.