Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Verenna


 * 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. Deor (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Verenna

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted immediately for the following reasons (with reference to the List of policies to cite in deletion debates): (1) The entire page contains the problems in question; the page cannot be "spruced up" by quick edits or fixed with further information, since there is nothing that can warrant the inclusion of this article. (2) There are no arguments for notability here; the biographical stump on this page refers to a blogger and non-notable author. (3) The anti-advertising or anti-promotion clause is relevant here, since pages like this are overwhelming created by the individuals themselves to boost notability through inclusion in the Wikipedia format. (4) There are no relevant citations here that prove notability or significance. (5) The individual in question has no scholarly status (despite co-editing one scholarly book), no affiliation with a university, and no doctoral degree. (6) As an "author" or "creative professional," the individual is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; the individual is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; the individual is has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, nor have any of the individual's works have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; and the individual's work has not garnered significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention, and is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

-cleavercor Verenna is notable in Bible studies academia. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete (for now). To date, nothing has been presented to support his notability. From the information in the article, he seems to be interested in Bible studies but there's nothing to suggest he has any formal education in the field or occupy any important academic position. He has edited a book, but so have loads of other people so if the only claim to fame is having edited a book, then I'd say delete. Jeppiz (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Google Scholar shows that he is notable within academia. His article is a stub, however that does not imply notability. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe Google Scholar to show him to be notable within academia, please provide a link. And please note that being searchable on Google Scholar applies to anyone who has written even a paper for minor conference and says nothing about notability. Once a person on Google Scholar is cited at least 10.000 times and has an h-index above 30-40, the person is most likely notable as an academic. There's nothing to suggest Verenna is even close to that. Existing and being notable are very different things. A search on Google Scholar makes it clear Verenna exists, but also that he is entirely non-notable. Jeppiz (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Commment Using Google Scholar that way ignores the nature of academiccitations. The measure only has validity in comparing individuals in thesame academic field who do the same sort of work. Bible studies has an infinitesimally lower citation rate than biology--and in fact, SCI as the first academic citation index was originally deigned specifically for molecular biology. GSW covers a far wider range of sources, but studies in this field have relatively few sources to cite, and do it only slectively, so the measure is particularly worthless.  DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Procedural Note: This discussion was not properly transcluded until now, please consider that when deciding on closing. I have also added the above AfD template. Monty  845  23:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete not really a scholar at all, and certainly not cited enough to be notable, even by biblical studies standards. Not notable in any other way, either. StAnselm (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-mainstream operators and eccentrics can be notable, but, from GS, this one does not achieve it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete just as Nom and others state, there is no notability to be found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for the time being and merge into Christ myth theory.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Omni Flames  ( talk ) 04:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Omni Flames  ( talk ) 04:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Simply not very convincing for notability, and few sources can be found.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 04:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's fairly difficult for scholars to establish notability, especially Biblical scholars since there are far fewer places that discuss and reprint the work that would be considered RS on Wikipedia. From what I can see, there's not that much mention of the guy. This is likely because as of 2012, Verenna was an undergraduate. Now an undergraduate can still put out work and gain notability via one of the guidelines, but it is far, far less likely that they'd gain attention over someone who has been in the field longer and is seen as more of an authority. If he keeps getting mentioned here and there then it's likely that he could pass in the future because hey, getting named dropped in an ABC-CLIO book is no small feat (it's enough to where he could maybe be considered a RS), but right now it just seems like it's too soon for him to have an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:59, 25 June 2016 (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.