Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Parker (biblicist)

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. Missvain (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Parker (biblicist)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a terrible article, but apart from that, the subject fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment clearly fails NPROF and needs a complete overhaul of the full article, but if there are indeed multiple newspaper articles about his political activity in France in the 1970s then he is probably notable per GNG. --hroest 14:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the "Parker affair" probably falls under WP:ONEEVENT. St Anselm (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~I added the authority control template to the article and nothing came up which indicares that World Cat has no record of any of his works being held in any libraries at all.~~ Also a number of his works have only been published on his own website so I don't see him as a significant author and the French coverage seems to be WP:BLP1E in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment about library holdings as some have now been found as below Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i have added citations to the Thesis paragraph and i have formalised the language. I do not think Andrew Parker is notable for only one event. I believe he is also notable for having an important understanding of the bible, one which was of great interest to me when i came across it, through no connection to him, and one which i think is of interest to other people. His great grandfather was notable and i have made a link to that page. Andrew Parker also has published books and articles. This is more than many people seem to have who have a wiki page. What action should i take now please? julie

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article deserves to be kept on account of his books. I investigated the first and foun d it to be publsihed by an academic press with copies in 15 libraries, mostly academic ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I have added two additional citations to published books - one by Keith Hebden and another by John Mantle - where Andrew Parker is talked about. I hope this helps. Thank you.Jmmansfield (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 07:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR (the library-holding counts mentioned above, for example, are very small numbers), and the available secondary sources either are passing mentions or run into the WP:ONEEVENT problem noted earlier. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to understand what is to be gained by wanting to delete this page. I wrote it in good faith - because i think Andrew Parker has a note-worthy perspective, some published material which i believe is of value to people who are interested in the Bible, and an interesting background which was sufficiently note-worthy to be reported in teh national press. I have no relationship with him, having come across his work through other websites, and think that if i find him and his work note-worthy and valuable then others will too. I have added in some more citations to books where he is discussed and quoted, and i have added in more citations about his thesis. Why is Andrew Parker up for deletion but yet, for example, the Dean of St Edmundsbury Cathedral allowed an entry when the only notable thing about him is his job title and the fact that he put his name to a group-letter to the Church Times? I have absolutely nothing against the Dean of St Edmundsbury Cathedral. He's a lovely bloke but the acceptance / deletion criteria seem very random and concerned with prestige. I agree that Andrew Parker is not the most notable person ever to be written about but i propose that he is notable enough through the combination of his published work and his having been reported in the press. julie Jmmansfield (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is doubting your good faith in writing the page. The trouble is that we have to go by what's already available in print, not just our own passions — believe me, there are half a dozen biographies I would have written about people whose work I have found inspirational, but sadly, given the nature of the Wikipedia project, it's just not the place for them. And supposing that I had, and then somebody had come along and said those pages should be deleted, pointing to other articles and asking why they exist would be an unconstructive thing for me to do. There's a lot of miscellany floating around Wikipedia. Sometimes, articles only exist because they haven't been noticed yet. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply - but i don't feel you have answered my points. Andrew Parker does have a noteworthy background in that he was written about in the national press of France, England and Scotland. He does have published books and articles and he is quoted and referred to by others in their published books. His work and his own website is discussed by interest-groups. His page is no longer an orphan page because i have just linked his great-grandfather's page to it - Robert Rainy. I could also link it to the wiki pages of other family members of his . Would that be helpful? Thanks again for your help and time. Jmmansfield (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! i would just like to confirm that i think this article deserves to be kept. I think i have answered all the objections;

- i wrote the article because i came across Andrew Parker's work through third-party websites. I am not connected or related to him.
- this article is no longer an orphan article as i have connected his great-grandfather's page to this one. Andrew Parker's great-grandfather was Robert Rainy who was a 
   Principal of New College, Edinburgh and a theologian.
- i have added in citations to the sources for his thesis.
- Andrew Parker's background is noteworthy because of his grassroots activism in France which got him into arguments with the French authorities which in turn led to his 
  expulsion from France and the later cancellation of that expulsion. This was not a single event but a protracted episode which went on for some time and was reported in the 
  national press of France, the UK and Scotland.
- Andrew Parker has published books.
- Andrew Parker has written chapters which appear in published books.
- Andrew Parker is referred to and quoted in other, unrelated people's published books.
- Andrew Parker writes blog articles which are published on websites.

Thanks. julie Jmmansfield (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.