Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lane Craig


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

William Lane Craig

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Procedural nomination. An IP editor tagged the article and left the following reasoning on its talk page:


 * Keep There is no good reason to delete this article, even if some references may need to be revised and/or deleted. As others have mentioned, Craig's frequent debates with notable atheists, as well as his prominence in the field of Christians apologetics warrant significant attention and interest, even if some doubt his credentials and/or importance as an analytic philosopher. Some of the article's content may need to be revised and/or deleted, but getting rid of the entire article would be very unwarranted and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb7473 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, Craig and his work are discussed in multiple articles published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals cited by our article. That seems sufficient to make him notable per criterion 1 of WP:PROF. He has also received some attention in the news media in connection with the Dawkins non-debate mentioned by 91.89.69.192, but that's not what he's primarily notable for, and the article currently does not even mention that affair. Huon (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with User:Huon Craig is notable in the field of Analytical philosophy with regards to his modern formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, his position on Molinism, A and B series of Time etc ...And he is frequently quoted and referenced to in this regard, and his work has been published as well as discussed and Critiqued in Peer Reviewed Philosophical journals like International Philosophical Quarterly...Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia clearly mentions him and his contribution in reviving the Kalam Cosmological Argument  Besides that a search of the philosophy documentation center brings up around 248 peer reviewed works the latest citation of his work in a peer reviewed paper in PDC's archive being in 2012  .A specific search on Google scholar brings out 2290 articles  . search on google scholar for articles/books authored by him brings about 348 results   There are 56 citations of Willaim Lane Craig regarding mostly the Kalam Argument since 2012 according to Google Scholar  2011 edition of the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity 2012 as well as the Cambridge Companion to Atheism refers to him in regards  to the Kalam Argument, any discussion on the modern formulation of the Kalam Argument references his work as seen here  The very Wikipedia page on the Kalam cosmological argument refers to him by name with regards to the modern variant of the Kalam Argument Kalām cosmological argument. Using google citations gadget , Craig has a h-index of 25, with 2787 citations and 207 cited publications. To claim that there are no independent secondary sources is untrue, The article overwhelmingly uses philosophical academic works for the purpose of representing Craig's philosophical positions, the 3 instances were the non academic sources were used (including two links to material in apologetics315 and a link to a youtube video) are of non-contentious and non-controversial nature and are merely used to asertain Craig's position on certain issues, The Discovery Institute link is used to as a reference to his fellowship there, His CV and info from his site Reasonable faith are used for biographical purposes and for compiling the debates list, even in the debates list the site reasonable faith is not the sole source of info, additional sources are used, but the debates list on that his site remains the most comprehensive source due to the multiplicity of venues. the Dawkins non debate is not what he's known for. Besides this Article was started in 2003, a long time before the Dawkins Craig non-debate, and the non-debate is not even  mentioned in the article.  Sanju87 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87


 * Keep Clearly notable because of the Kalam Cosmological Argument but also 411,000 Google results for "William Lane Craig Dawkins", I am not suggesting that he is primarily known because of this but it is clearly an important part of his notability, I really do not understand why this is being ignored?Theroadislong (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Huon. See also for example this article published in Veja (April 2012). Craig is described as "currently one of the best defenders of christian doctrine". Thucyd (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. According to the article, "One of his most notable contributions to the philosophy of religion is his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument." If you look up his book The Kalām Cosmological Argument, there has been little academic interest in it for the last 30 years. His main fame on the other hand seems to be from debates, which received some press, mostly from Christian websites (some fail WP:RS). It is telling that 7 of the sources in his article are from himself or CV and some others are links to youtube. If he is an academic it should be reflected in the sources. If he is a famous debater when there should be secondary sources, not youtube clips. As it stands the article fails WP:PROF. No notable work in the field of philosophy (or Christian thought), no major award, no major academic position, not the editor of a major journal and never been elected to a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society. VLARKer7 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The book The Kalām Cosmological Argument is different from the philosophical argument of the same name Kalām cosmological argument Craig is known for the modern formulation of the philosophical argument, the book by that name is merely Craig's first work on the topic bearing the same name, printed in 1979. The Last Citation of Craig to Philosophy Documentation Center was in 2012,To google scholar there are 56 citations of Willaim Lane Craig and his works since 2012  Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity 2012 as well as the Cambridge Companion to Atheism refer to him with respect to the Kalam Argument,the Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia article on the Cosmological Argument refers  to him by name and discusses his formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument,  Wikipedia's entry on the kalam cosmological argument mentions Craig and his contribution to the modern variant of the Kalam argumentKalām cosmological argument, All this along with the Google Scholar Results and his h-index score clearly shows that he clearly meets WP:PROF. The article uses Craig's CV only for the purpose of the Biographical info The other reference to Craig's website is for the Debate's list, the article only refers to the people he debated and for that the debates list from his personal website is used since due to the multiplicity of venues a more complete list is difficult to find,  A single youtube clip has been used with reference to his position on intelligent design, the clip citation 23 is redundant as citation no. 24 states the same thing,it is not used as a source of his debating prowess The article merely mentions that he takes part in debates but makes no assumptions about his debating abilities.Sanju87 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I amazed this page has been nominated. Even from Google Scholar it looks cut and dried. Craig's h-index is 23. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. In its current form, this article is very misleading, and contains no facts of relevance. Craig is virtually unknown outside the field of theological debate, and within the field he has a poor reputation among philosophers. I can only suspect this article was written by Craig's publicist; no one else would consider bragging about the prominent atheists with which Craig has debated, as if that meant something at all. Without a "controversy" section, this article is a work of fiction and we'd be better off without it. EricNau (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * this is a content dispute, and needs to be discussed on the talk page. The article   does seem to me to be too positive in implicitly endorsing his views, but I think this a matter of wording.  Since every doctrine has its supporters and opponents, deleting articles about people whose views have opponents would remove the entire philosophical, religious, and political content of the encyclopedia. So this argument is essentially IDONTLIKEIT.  DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject is an academic, with a h-index of 23 or 25. This is a clear keep under WP:PROF. On top of that, there's enough news coverage to independently satisfy WP:N. Any content disputes belong on the article talk page. -- 202.124.73.65 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: VanArragon's book Key Terms in Philosophy of Religion (cited in the article) has Craig in a list of "key thinkers" in the subject. The nomination makes no sense at all (the Dawkins non-debate is not even mentioned in the article, for example) and Craig is clearly notable for his work in philosophy and theology, as indicated by the citations and discussion of it. There is a clear failure of WP:BEFORE here. -- 202.124.73.43 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here is 20 pages of scholarly independent analysis of his work: The first sentence of the absract also references the subject's notability: "In a series of much discussed articles and books, William Lane Craig defends the view that the past could not consist in a beginningless series of events. In the present paper, I cast a critical eye on just one part of Craig's case..." Jesanj (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have never agreed with a single thing this "philosopher" says, but removing this article is akin to censorship and not keeping in the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia! Geĸrίtzl (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no question that William Lane Craig qualifies under the categories listed in WP:PROF. Even if one were to completely ignore his academic contributions (briefly highlighted above by Sanju87), his popularity alone as a Christian apologist would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, WP:NOTE, for a page. Therefore, in the strongest possible terms I vote to "Keep". --Jeremy 414 (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Craig's arguments are ludicrous, and in some cases despicable (for example on the moral legitimacy of the Biblical genocides), but there is no question whatsoever in my mind that Craig has been a highly influential figure in Christian theology and apologism in recent years. This nomination is barmy. Saint91 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I just googled this name trying to find out who this person was, and the Wikipedia entry came up as I would expect it should.  Likely there are/will be others in my position and that is reason enough to have an article on him. Icemuon (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep: I'm no fan of Craig, but he's clearly notable in the evangelical apologetics community and has been widely covered. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Seriously, people. Disagreeing with someone's religious views is not a valid reason for deleting their Wikipedia page. Is this what open sourcing has come to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogomatsui (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. My rationale is simple: I learned of this "Keep/Delete" debate only when I accessed this article. And I accessed this article because I saw numerous references to this fellow on YouTube. Is that insufficiently notorious? Insufficiently noteworthy? Perhaps. But I'm glad I found an article here. Even this debate about "Keep/Delete" tells me something. Timothy Campbell (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Is this a joke? Craig is very well known both popularly and academically and is a notable figure on numerous fronts. This article's nomination for deletion is highly questionable and may be motivated by something other than wiki standards. As for the point above about the Kalam argument not being notable, according the Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge University Press), Craig's Kalam argument is the most discussed argument for the existence of God in all of contemporary philosophy. Smith, Quentin (2007). "Kalam Cosmological Arguments for Atheism". In Martin, Michael. The Cambridge companion to atheism. Cambridge University Press. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-521-84270-9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlucem2 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 May 2012 (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.