Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Hammar


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Richard Hammar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability. There is a claim of notability... 5o books is a lot to "author", but I didn't find the the claim in the ref & anyway, I would expect decent refs if anybody had bought, read or reviewed any of them. Article needs a good haircut and all. TheLongTone (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, but I could be convinced otherwise with some additional sourcing. This ref from the article is useful for notability, as is this, despite not being independent. But at this point, I don't see the sort of substantial sourcing from independent reliable sources to make the case for notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback, TheLongTone and Hobbes Goodyear! I have added some additional sources. This is my first page and I would welcome any further changes you might recommend to keep it on wikipedia. Cheers,Hml1315092 (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hml1315092 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the the new sources provides independent, substantial coverage of the subject. They do not provide a reason to suggest that this subject merits an encyclopedia article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hobbes Goodyear, I've added some sources which I felt were independent. If these are not independent, please consider giving me an example and I will add it.Hml1315092 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a look, but they seem mostly to be from his own publishers or book sellers, none of which could be considered independent. The remainder do not look reliable. (There is one local interest-type piece about a star photo that seems of fairly minor interest, w/r/t notability.) The ref I pointed to originally, a newspaper profile of the subject, is a useful example of reliable, non-trivial source. Similar sorts of pieces from other newspapers or magazines would be helpful, or the equivalent on radio or television, in proportion to the reliability of the source--it need not be the NY Times or 60 Minutes, but a local church's newsletter or a local cable access show would not carry much weight. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) TheLongTone (talk) I would be curious if you find my updates acceptable? Hml1315092 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- General counsel to a major denomination may well be notable in itself. I expect that the 50 books are largely on legal topics.  That they should be published by the denominational publishing house is also unsurprising.  However, one someone comes across one of the 50, he (she) may want to know who this guy is.  Having said that, this is a bad biography: it concentrates too much on background and far too little on what he has done in the course of a career of over 35 years.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, Peterkingiron! The 50 books are not published by the denominational publishing house - that is Gospel Publishing House. Richard Hammar's books are published by Christianity Today which has no ties to the Assemblies of God. I will add more about what he has done in his career as you suggested, thanks again Hml1315092 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The counsel to a group with over 60 million adherents is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 24 December 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.