Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David C. Fisher

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. The article would be strengethened if independent reviews of his books can be found and cited. JohnCD (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Fisher[edit]

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

Author and pastor with no evidence of notability. Can find nothing of note from news sources of Google Scholar. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he led two of the most influential evangelical churches in the U.S. and has published.Swampyank (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The list of ministers at Park Street Church#Senior Ministers (1811-present) makes it look like it is a notable position. St Anselm (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this comment, there are fourteen other pastors in this list for which Wikipedia has articles, and only one interim pastor for which there is no article, and this information was available when this article was nominated for deletion 22 minutes after the article was created. Unscintillating (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a huge number of Google Books hits, but most seem to be different people of the same name. -- 202.124.73.227 (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual is notable and the information in the article is verifiable. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would be happy to keep the article, but I have found no reliable sources that persuade me Fisher is notable. If anyone knows of any (perhaps I've just missed them), please point them out. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Looks as if he is just about notable, at a minimum. The fact that his book went trhough 8 impressions suggests that it is significnat. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to be (barely) notable: there is news coverage, some of which is listed in the article, and there are numerous reviews of his books. -- 202.124.72.226 (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are numerous substantial independent reviews of his books, as indeed one would expect for books published by Zondervan, the extremely reputable major US publisher in the field, then he meets WP:AUTHOR without any ambiguity. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – But he might be notable as an AUTHOR, as claimed by DGG, but verification of multiple independent reviews are needed, and I haven't found any. Just being published is not enough. Jance day (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (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.