Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Krejcir


 * 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 Delete. Although there was serious debate about the subject's notability, DGG's argument was well researched and policy-based and appeared to be convincing to others, whereas the "keep" !votes were challenged. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Richard Krejcir

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was literally only this and the current article would need better work. I actually tagged this in March 2012 and it's not surprising this hasn't changed and improving since then. Pinging past user and also users interested with this subject  (who also made changes), ,  and. SwisterTwister  talk  07:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

G11 on this  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. The Google Scholar cites suggest he is a significant authority in the area of statistics on pastors, and hence passes WP:PROF #1. StAnselm (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: He is a published author, who has written stories for CBN, been interviewed by rej Christianity Today], State of Ministry Online interview, has been cited in this doctoral dissertation from Tennessee Temple University, quoted in a Liberty University dissertation, part of a Ministry Magazine story, written another story for Faith Writer Magazine, used in another dissertation from Dallas Theological Seminary, mentioned in this scholarly article, yet another dissertation, covered in Faith Writers, interviewed in a story for International Journal of Pastors. This is evidence he meets the No. 1 of SCHOLAR, and satisfies GNG, where I could find more.The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even verifiable. None of his books are even in Worldcat, nor can any of them be found cited in Google scholar. The quotes on statistics arecitations to his website, not his formal publications. 28 uses of his website is not by itself enough to show authority as anything, certainly not as a scholar. All bio information seems to  to be derived   from his own publications or those of his organizations. I cannot find the cbn page, nor find it on their site. The article in Christianity Today's "The christian Women" website is not about him: it contains a link to his website. The "scholarly article" is from a unverifiable book   on JerryJohnston.com, and he is very far from being a scholar. I can't find the interview in the 7th Day Adventist "Ministry: An International Journal for Pastors". All the miscellaneous citation show, is  that a few people have found his website. The overwhelming bulk of the article is a recitation of his religious views.  I am seriously considering G11 for this. Nor can we keep a blp without any third party verification at all., please look again.   DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per AUTHOR, he meets the first criteria, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", for notability by the sources I dredged up above. 100-percent no G11 candidate on this one.The Cross Bearer (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wow, we have some wildly divergent claims and views here. To be sure, I'm not sure how (a) citing websites should be taken into account, and (b) how to gauge the notability of statistical researchers. The first Google scholar result is this book, which cites Krejcir's work as "one study of 1050 pastors..." I assume most of the citations are along those lines. Certainly, The Cross Bearer's evidence doesn't stack up: we can't say someone is "interviewed" if all they have is a quote in an article. StAnselm (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Interpreting the material here as showing "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" would essentially mean any author whose work --even his unpublished work -- is cited anywhere 40 time or more is notable. That is certain different from all previous discussions of WP:PROF. Certainly, the number is lower in the humanities. Were he a theologian, and these citations to a published book or series of articles, I might consider this, depending on where and how he is cited ; an unpublished survey of pastors? No. That's quantitative social science, and 40 is not nearly enough there by itself.  DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per DGG Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 04:25, 18 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.