Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas E. Woodward


 * 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. While there may be no evident consensus, the evidence provided by DGG & John Z demonstrates adequate notability. &mdash;  caknuck °  is not used to being the voice of reason  19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas E. Woodward

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Author of two books promoting pseudoscience (creationism). No references, no assertations of notability. Article lists his two current teaching assignments as "adjunct faculty," which shows how unnotable his research is. We66er (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The creation/evolution issue is a noteworthy topic that generates a large amount of reports in the media and other references. Just being "adjuct faculty" does not mean the reaserch is not notable.  I found plenty of references on Google to support the notability of this individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not really an academic as such and should be considered under WP:BIO. I looked around and could not find substantial coverage of him by independent reliable sources. Nothing of relevance in GoogleScholar. GoogleBooks produces a bunch of hits for his name but upon checking closer almost all appear to be false positives (there are some exceptions such as a citation of his book here and another one here). Very little in GoogleNews also (20 hits, all but one are false positives; the single non-false positive is an article by the subject himself in Christianity Today). Does not appear to be a sufficinently prominent figure within the intelligent design movement and does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:BIO per Nsk92. Edison (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. His books don't seem to be with an academic press.  His only claim to fame would be as an academic, and his publishing record does not satisfy that kind of notability. RJC Talk Contribs 04:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment welll.... the claim of notability may be considered religious-based instead. It's worth considering from that angle.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article makes no claims about religious notability, whatever that might be.  He's not a leader of a large sect, one that has been covered extensively in the news media.  He is a scholar with a religious agenda.  As a scholar, he is not notable, per the guidelines at WP:PROF. RJC Talk Contribs 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Response the first sentence of the article states "professor of missions, evangelism and science at Trinity College of Florida/Dallas Theological Seminary (Tampa Bay Extension) and a prominent Christian apologist" seems like a claim to notability to me, and that claim is based on religious topics--particularly as a "Christian apologist."--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The first sentence says he is a professor at a school that grants associates and bachelors degrees.  That is a statement about his academic position.  His being an apologist also signifies that his primary activity is writing and publishing arguments.  Both of these suggest at look at WP:PROF as the proper guideline.  The kind of research he does is irrelevant if his primary activity is research. RJC Talk Contribs 14:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'd pursue further, but it looks to me like consensus has spoken (and it's not me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as outlined by the above people, fails both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because not covered by secondary sources, not because of his point of view however. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable author. "Doubts about Darwin" is, much to my surprise, shown by WorldCat as held by over 300 US libraries, including most major academic libraries. Not a scholar exactly, but an author. DGG (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: article is wholly unsourced and thus provides no verifiable information (let alone verifiable specifics) about the topic's notability. Woodward is a minor (though not obscure) figure in creationism circles. His stature in Christian apologetics circles is unclear (as there is little in the way of objective/intersubjective measures of prominence in this field). HrafnTalkStalk 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Better gnews, etc results for this search, including this newspaper article about him, it appears he usually doesn't use the "E".  He debated Michael Ruse on one occasion.  Looking at some gscholar hits, it seems that his history is considered reasonably reliable, although sympathetic.John Z (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable author per DGG.Nrswanson (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - the newspaper article that JohnZ found has significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2008 (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.