Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Carrier


 * 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 per consensus and article's improvement PeaceNT 05:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Carrier

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

probably NN except for Internet Infidels, and I do not think that II is of sufficient importance that it alone is enough to make him notable for WP purposes. Contested speedy--probably should have gone here directly DGG 08:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I !voted Weak Keep for Internet Infidels). DGG 08:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As Carrier often debates outside the infidels forum it would be POV to include all his links there. I'm considering attempting to flesh this out a bit but we have had horrendous problems in the past as this guy is positively hated by some Christians and we run into WP:BIO issues. Sophia  10:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless properly sourced. Article contains no reliable sources demonstrating notability. No Google News Archive results for "richard.carrier empty.tomb", and his other book is apparently self-published. --Dhartung | Talk 13:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep What is the criteria for notability? According to Notability (people), it has nothing to do with whether the man has an impressive CV or if you think the website he writes for is famous or not. The criteria is whether there has been enough external notice from intellectually independent sources so that we can write a verifiable and neutral article without having to engage in original research. Sources that establish notability are things like: a critical response to his book, a response to his review by Earl Doherty, and a mention on the apologetic website "Tektonics". These are the kind of stuff that establish notability because they are completely independent of the subject, and independent from each other, and therefore can help us write a neutral account of his views. --Merzul 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Considerable web presence, extremely notable - just because he doesn't have a PhD or a formal university post does not make him not-notable. One of his books is self-published, but that is not all that surprising, given the medium he works in and the ways he works. He is an internet person, not a member of the formal academic "history" or "philosophy" club. He is also very strongly disliked in certain christian circles - so beware POV-pushing attempts to delete this article! Gnusmas 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete This guy has a lot of ghits and although I profoundly disagree with his views he has a perfect right to express them. But he's a PhD candidate (who BTW claims to have an | "office" at the University of Colombia!) and one book published by a vanity publisher and a lot of bloggery/web presence is certainly not enough for notabilty. We need reliable published sources ("intellectually independent" sources have nothing to do with it, the question is are they reliable and published - mentions on websites aren't enough). I'd be surprised if these can't be found in sufficient quantity, and if they are then I will of course change my vote. User:SOPHIA is a v experienced editor and I have no doubt that if they exist she will find them. NBeale 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the guidelines, intellectual independence has everything to do with it. You are confusing importance with Notability. --Merzul 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gnusmas and Merzul. Not much else to say. Clearly meets notability, lots of google hits, IMDB page, editor-in-Chief of a website with a high google ranking and a wikipedia article. -Andrew c 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable atheist thinker and expert on the historicity of Jesus. Laurence Boyce 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if he is indeed notable there should be reliable published sources that establish this, referenced in the article. Whether people like or dislike his ideas has nothing to do with it. The IMDB page shows an appearance along with many others in a documentary, and being former editor of a website (which I think was in fact self-published?) is not per se enough for notability. BTW: no reputable scholar considers him an expert on the Historicity of Jesus - Jesus as Myth is lunatic fringe stuff on a par with young earth creationism.  We should vote on the basis of what is in the article. NBeale 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Jesus as Myth is lunatic fringe stuff on a par with young earth creationism. Whereas the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, turned water into wine, died, stayed dead three days, and then rose up from the dead prior to shooting off into the sky . . . Laurence Boyce 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...is true iff Jesus is the Son of God, as believed by c2bn people. The ideas may look a bit strange, but so does QM NBeale 07:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ....but QM has the photoelectric effect whereas Christianity has the power of prayer. And what about the 4bn that don't believe??? Sophia  11:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * . . . and besides, more than half of Americins are creationists, so we have to take that seriously too? Laurence Boyce 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Absolutely. Even if he is on a lunatic fringe (which he isn't), he is notable, and that's that. Snalwibma 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the other keeps. Acalamari 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above. Anyone interested in this area will come to know Carrier's work, as it stands out among the literature in the field for both is accesssibility and noteworthyness.Giovanni33 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Coverage in published sources is limited but not trivial, and I think his significant online presence tips the balance in favour of notability. EALacey 07:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep ^^James^^ 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as this meets any sane interpretation of Notability (people) guidelines. RFerreira 02:40, 15 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.