Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Hendricks (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Unification Theological Seminary. Although there is, oddly, no consensus as to whether the article should be "kept and merged" or "deleted and merged", there is consensus to merge into Unification Theological Seminary – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyler Hendricks
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable page as this person's role in the church could be easily merged into Unification Theological Seminary rather than leaving a one line article. No independent sources establish notability and despite being tagged for improvement for over 12 months there is no sign of any advancement to addressing notability or any prospect of improving sources. This article has a prior AFD Articles for deletion/Tyler Hendricks from July 2008. Ash (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Adding "unification" to the Google News search for Tyler Hendricks shows 11 mentions for this person. He certainly appears to meet the GNG, and from the previous discussions regarding Michael Jenkins (religious leader), consensus (though not universal) pointed towards the presidency of the Unification Church in the United States as an inherently notable position, much like a Roman Catholic Bishop. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a rationale against merging?—Ash (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but you don't appear to have proposed a merger, but rather a deletion. If the question is "to delete or not to delete", my answer is "Not, he's notable and reliably sourced".  I have no particular objection to a merger, but that's more properly an editing question. Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was going by Guide_to_deletion where as well as Keep or Delete, you may also have Merge as an option. I was not aware that I had limited the discussion in any way. I have highlighted this word in my original nomination without changing the text in order to make this clear.—Ash (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AfD-mandated merges are reasonable when a non-AfD merge attempt has failed. From WP:BEFORE "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." Again, I don't object to a merge, but that's not my !vote. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Unification Theological Seminary. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The general rule that the president of a college is notable holds. We don't discriminate according to which. DGG (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: seminaries are generally much smaller and and generate less notability for their officers than colleges. Therefore even if such a "general rule" existed (rather than a mere correlation), it would not apply. And I would suggest that the reason rthat notability guidelines and AfDs exist is that we do "discriminate".
 * You stated "we don't discriminate" - I beg to differ. Of course we do. That's precisely what the notability guidelines are for. If we allowed an article on every Seminary head or mail order college head we'd be swamped in Gastriches and worse. I don't think you thought that statement through at all. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge: fails WP:ACADEMIC (being president of a seminary does not meet any of its criteria), fails WP:GNG as there is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I would further state that, contrary to Jclemens, mere number of Google News hits is immaterial to establishing that a topic meets this criteria -- as this number gives no indication whatsoever of depth of coverage. If it had been a cogent argument on the point of news coverage it would have been discussing amount of coverage in individual articles. I would suggest that the consensus in Articles for deletion/Michael Jenkins (Unification Church) was thin both in terms of numbers and in terms of arguments that had any basis in the guidelines, so acts as a very poor precedent. The notability of Michael Jenkins (religious leader) and whether there is sufficient RS information to give an accurate(-if-limited) portrayal of him remain open questions on Talk:Michael Jenkins (religious leader). Church presidents are appointed by Sun Myung Moon, who appears to retain both the power and the notability of head of the church, both in the US and worldwide, with the appointees garnering little power or coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. Does not rate WP:Prof. Other notability appears negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep and merge. I would be persuaded by the nomination's arguments if this was a matter of first impression, but we have already decided in the first nomination to keep the article. I don't see any argument that the situiation has changed since then, so due deference is required. Nevertheless, article and content are conceptually distinct; the nominator's concerns are well-taken, and I suggest that we close this as a keep and a merge - which I would support - be proposed instead. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not especially notable. Czolgolz (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge. By itself, being a former president of the American Unification Church is probably not enough to establish notability for an article. I'm not aware of any reliable sources saying that he did anything particularly notable during his presidency (though he was mentioned in passing as the president of the American church many times). The same thing could be said of Michael Jenkins (religious leader), which should probably be deleted. The argument above that this is an "inherently notable position, much like a Roman Catholic Bishop" just doesn't line up with the fact that there are no Wikipedia articles about thousands of bishops from previous centuries.


 * But Hendricks has something else: he is the current president of a fully accredited graduate school, the main seminary in the world for the Unification Church. One could argue that this by itself might not meet the bar of notability. But it seems clear that the two together are sufficient. So the logical conclusion would be "keep." As a practical matter, however, given the comments above, "merge" might be the best compromise. -Exucmember (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2009 (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.