Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Collins (archaeologist)


 * 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 redirect to Trinity Southwest University with limited merge of relevant material. The only sources offered in support of notability in the discussion failed to even mention Collins. The Nature article and others might support the notability of Collins' Sodom theory but they cannot be used to support notability of a biography whose subject is not mentioned SpinningSpark 23:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Steven Collins (archaeologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:PROF and likely a WP:SOAP violation. Yes, Christian apologists love his advocacy. Yes, there are groups who support him out of ideological preference (including Christianty Today and the Biblical Archaeology Society (fringe group). See WP:Walled garden and WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Additionally the subject, who is a creationist based at a dubious strip-mall "university," fails WP:GNG (i.e., he has received no notable, significant coverage from independent sources), many of the article's sources are of questionable reliability, and the article itself is clearly promotional. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I thought three of the sources (one from Christianity Today and two from Popular Archaeology) actually gave a pretty good neutral treatment of the subject of archaeological searches for Sodom, but that coverage is not about Steven Collins although he is mentioned. Otherwise, the article looks like a WP:REFBOMB, a lot of irrelevant sources to give the subject an appearance of notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep He has done actual on site Archaeology work. Deleting over ones views on religion is bigotry. The page as been here for 6 years and edited by many. This is not a new page. Telecine Guy (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And not a single one of those points are relevant to Notability, which is what we are discussing here. Lots of people do "actual on site archaeology work" but that isn't a reason to have articles about them. An allegation that religion is the motivation for this discussion speaks volumes about your own bias, not anyone else's. Article duration and number of editors are also irrelevant factors in determining notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @ I think that's overstating things. While I agree that it's not WP:N argument, I do concur that there is a clear bias in the nomination against perfectly respectable sources. The CT article is well balanced in its reporting, highlighting criticisms of Collins and his work and not giving an overly favorable impression (on the contrary I left feeling not impressed after reading their assessment). Likewise, the Biblical Archaeology Society is not a FRINGE group but is widely cited in academic research and is a respectable organization that has contributed a large body of important literature in its field. They have published literature by many highly respected and non-controversial leading scholars in archaeology over the last five decades. There's really nothing valid in the nominator's attack on the sources, and it's clear the nomination is prejudicial against scholarship or media connected with religion in a way that violates wikipedia's policies on neutrality.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Tall el-Hammam (and possibly small selective merge there, though the Sodom theory and Collins are already on that page), which is what the coverage is about (possible destruction by meteor and association with Sodom and Gomorrah), he is the director of excavations there. Collins is not close to passing NPROF as far as I can tell (note there are several other individuals with the same name who possibly do pass NPROF in other fields such as cancer research and computer science). Searching for "steven collins" archaeologist in google news brings up around 20 sources of varying reliability (some are reliable) discussing the Tall el-Hammam/meteor/Sodom connection, in which Collins is quoted, interviewed, or mentioned. What is lacking for standalone bio is coverage of Collins himself and Collins in a context other than Tall el-Hammam. -- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While I think the Tall el-Hammam article is a better redirect target, I am not opposed to a redirect to Trinity Southwest University if there is fear that a redirect to the site will cause disruption at that article. I would re-title the section at Trinity Southwest University to include the el-Hammam name since the university is not known for other archaeological investigations as far as I can tell.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 10:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not a christian, I'm an atheist. I'm also a communist and not an American, but have y'all seen this article in the Nature from 2 days ago? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3 I think this alone kinda implies the guy is notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. Therefore I am voting to keep this article. --Daikido (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's entirely about Tall el-Hammam and does not mention Collins in the prose, though it does cite several of his papers.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not in Nature, but in Scientific Reports, a much dodgier journal from the same publisher. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The guy seems like a first-class crackpot, and an expert on pseudoarchaeology. His outlandish ideas seem to be getting press attention. The article has potential for expansion. We have decent articles on similar charlatans, like Zecharia Sitchin and Ignatius L. Donnelly. I don't see the relevance of WP:PROF here, as his (rather phony) academic position is entirely unrelated to his press coverage. Dimadick (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I guess we should look to see what kind of sources would confer a WP:FRINGEBLP on this subject, then, if that's truly the case. jps (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * leaning redirect I have mixed feelings on this particular article: there is some argument for including him on the basis of notoriety, but OTOH he is pretty much entirely "notable" for the Tell El-Hammam excavations, so when all the resume padding is removed, there perhaps isn't anything that merits more than a link to the article on the site. That said, I'm concerned about the attitude towards various sources. Christianity Today, for example, is as reliable as anyone for straight reporting— better than MSM sources on a lot of religious issues because the quality of the latter tends to betray a great deal of ignorance. Indeed, what I can see of the cited CT article on the dig is not particularly positive and acknowledges the controversy. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tall el-Hammam not because of what he believes but simply because he fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 21:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, merge or redirect to Tall el-Hammam or to Trinity Southwest University. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He did publish several books, but it's hard to say how significant they were; I do not see significant non-trivial coverage about the person. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect All coverage on him relates to Tall el-Hammam, which is fringe work rather than academic. Reywas92Talk 03:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Per User:Joe Roe, this should be a merge to Trinity Southwest University. Reywas92Talk 15:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge or redirect to Tall el-Hammam. I rather doubt that Collins is notable outside of fringe biblical inerrantist circles, but I'm not sure so I won't offer a !vote either way. But Tall el-Hammam is a real archaeological site that was excavated by real archaeologists before Collins got there. There is a provisional consensus on Talk:Tall el-Hammam (albeit not yet implemented) that we should minimise its reliance on Collins' pseudoarchaeological publications about the site in the interests of due weight. Merging this article there would mean further crowding out actual science about the site with biographical material on Collins. If we have to merge or redirect this somewhere, I think Trinity Southwest University would be more appropriate. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I've been cleaning up the prose and improving the referencing.  If this is deleted, I hope that work is used to improve content elsewhere.  Most of the refs I've dealt with now have a free version available for review.  Also, I wonder if NAUTHOR applies given the book Discovering the City of Sodom has a page of praise from various named sources, along with other favourable comments on the publisher's website (both linked in the article).  172.195.96.244 (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you but now the article relies even more heavily on non-independent sources (written by Collins or his direct team/students) and articles in unreliable, 'in-universe' publications like Bible and Spade. The sum total of independent coverage seems to be press about his outlandish claims about Tall el-Hammam. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and the rubbish polemical of attempting to pigeonhole theists into WP:FRINGE rather than deal with notability absent such ad hominem attacks. GNG appears to be solidly met. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? The man teaches biblical inerrancy and creationism at a strip mall. WP:FRINGE is definitely relevant. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to say keep as he is a professor, then I r4elasied at some dodgy place that is not even a proper university.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tall el-Hammam. As the lead archaeologist of the sight for the vast majority of the archaeological work (only two very small surveys were done earlier; versus the large amount of excavation under his tenure since 2005) and the lead author of a respectable scholarly book published by Penn State University Press on that work he clearly deserves coverage in that article. Arguments that he should somehow be excluded are basically ignoring the fact that no other individual has contributed anywhere close to the amount of work at that site in terms of excavation and exploration than Collins, and he has published some respectable literature for that work in addition to his dubious theory on the whole Sodom thing. Ultimately, I don't think there is enough coverage on him to pass GNG and he clearly fails NACADEMIC. I would consider the controversy a WP:BLP1E issue, and as such all of this press doesn't meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. I'm not seeing enough coverage of him or citations to his work for WP:GNG or WP:PROF. The meteoric airburst theory got a lot of press recently, but he's not even one of the many coauthors on that, so it doesn't contribute to his notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect; hardly wiki-notable, "known" for only one thing and barely known for that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. There is very little coverage of him by third parties and not enough detail to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:PROF. This article has improved so little since it was started in 2015, and then it did not meet notability guidelines. Qt.petrovich (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", Collins has published a number of books and articles which have made "a substantial impact outside academia". As for television, I don't know much about USA & UK, but in a small country like Denmark I can see, that the National Broadcast Station of Denmark at least 23 times have aired a program, where Collins tells about - well, whatever Collins tells about. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep: first of all biblical archeological society is not crackpot it's literally a society of prestigious scholars you can visit their website and scholars who have written articles for them, read their articles https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/lachish-temple-sheds-new-light-on-canaanite-religion/ https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/review-my-nine-lives/ written by a distinguished professor of anthropology and cyber archeology who teaches at university of San Diego Steven Collins whatever you might think about him has published articles in reputed journals and recently exchanged articles with todd bolen. It should also be noted that this article also supports his view http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017LPICo1987.6001S/abstract

And recently https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3 this article was published in support of his theory

This article although the site is less popular quotes real academics https://scitechdaily.com/sodom-and-gomorrah-evidence-that-a-cosmic-impact-destroyed-a-biblical-city-in-the-jordan-valley/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.77.42.23 (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The IP editor directly above has made exactly two edits to Wikipedia, both to this discussion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And the editor a little above that, Qt.petrovich, made 'his' first edit 18 September 2021. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, Oleryhlolsson. This account is new with just a dozen or so edits, but I am a long-time editor on WP. I was inactive for many years but am back now. Cheers! Qt.petrovich (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2021 (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.