Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farrell Till (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 no consensus. People disagree about whether there are sufficient sources for an article, and that's not up to me to decide. Sandstein 09:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farrell Till

[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)

Fixing malformed AFD nomination. This is the 2nd AFD, I'm pasting the nominator's concern here: Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Lacks depth of coverage by reliable sources. The Skeptical Review is a defunct website and the prior print publication went defunct before the website was published. The article also says he was a prominent debater yet for the most part it only mentions his debate with Norman Geisler (It also mentions a debate with Kent Hovind, but Hovind is not widely respected even among his fellow young earth creationists. Hovind even went separate ways from his son Eric Hovind who runs another young earth creationist ministry. And the separation was not very amicable)." Knox490 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

Note: The article creator was not notified but should have been, I just issued it now. —Paleo Neonate – 12:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability guidelines. Majority of sourcing are mere mentions or primary sources and most are from non-mainstream news sources. Missvain (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having done a quick search, I think there may be enough for notability, just. For what it's worth, Till has also debated Douglas Wilson and Kent Hovind, not just Norman Geisler. JohnnyBflat (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see some sort of reputable-looking religious news news blog here that mentions him in depth, as well as multiple reliable mentions in books via GBooks. it's enough to say he existed and has been discussed in published sources enough to determine his background beliefs and activities.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Authordom (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still looking for proper independent coverage but this turns out difficult. However, I find many Christian apologetic books and sites mentioning him, as well as a number of skeptic ones. If these are all considered "in universe", possibly that they don't count. In that universe, the person however appears very notable, including having accepted debates with popular apologetics (some very popular because of controversies). I'm ambivalent so am not !voting yet. —Paleo Neonate – 11:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: he's listed here under "Prominent Atheist/Agnostic vs.Theist Debates". This is still "in universe", but maybe an indication of importance there. —Paleo Neonate – 11:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned here at Talkorigins that is also generally considered good for WP when the topic touches evolution (example RSN thread). —Paleo Neonate – 11:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The above for me is a weak keep - very notable in his field, but still weak for lack of independent coverage. —Paleo Neonate – 12:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Decent sized write up in Babinski, Edward T. (30 June 2003). Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists. Prometheus. pp. 293–. ISBN 978-1-61592-167-6.. MrBill3 (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the meaning of the GNG, significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, as demonstrated by cites in article and listed above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I don't see enough significant coverage independent from the subject. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 14:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CatcherStorm ^talk 04:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Literally nothing notable. He debated some other guys. So what? Bearian (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2020 (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.