Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Kuhrt

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 participants in the discussion believe his role in church governance and the multiple reviews of his writings are sufficient to indicate notability. RL0919 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Kuhrt[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 was created as a stub years ago and apparently abandoned by the page creator who has created thousands of new pages based, apparently, on the fact that the person is in Who's who by virtue of being an archdeacon. Archdeacons are not notable for Wikipedia by virtue of their office, but may be notable for some other reason. I know the subject of this page, and have attempted to provide some justification for his notability based on his publications, and I added the Bibliography yesterday, but reading the notability guideline for authors, I do not think his publications are very well known or much quoted. I am not convinced that he is sufficiently notable for an article. I will be glad if people disagree - but wanted to test this issue before investing more time into filling out the biography. Sirfurboy (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Wolfe (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Falkiner Goold

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Thomas (priest)Bashereyre (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. No significant coverage can be found in the article nor in a search that shows notability. The subject once wrote an opinion piece for the Church Times and was quoted by the BBC about a firefighter's death and the effects on the community - both of which I would imagine fall under the duties of a typical minister of faith. No wide coverage. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As director of ministry for the Archbishops' Council of the Church of England, he is quoted in quite a few articles in The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Financial Times, The Sunday Telegraph, certainly more than an ordinary archdeacon would be. He is considered as one of four English evangelical scholars in the second half of the 20th century, and his book An Introduction to Christian Ministry discussed, in Priesthood in a New Millennium: Toward an Understanding of Anglican Presbyterate in the Twenty-First Century [1]. There is a review of his book Life’s Not Always Easy (not in the article yet) in Fulcrum [2], and the views presented in his book An Introduction to Christian Ministry are criticised in an article 'Beware the bureaucrats' in the Church Times [3], though it is Indicative Reading in a Master of Theology in Chaplaincy Studies at Cardiff University [4]. The book Paul on Baptism: Theology, Mission and Ministry in Context gives his book Believing In Baptism in Suggested Reading, as a "useful popular book ... widely respected and valued" [5], and there's a review of that book in Churchman [6] (p 380), and the editorial in The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (Spring 1989) is almost a review of it, certainly discusses it and recommends his approach [7], and this issue of the journal has an actual review of it (p 58) [8]. I think he meets WP:NAUTHOR, with reviews/discussions of 3 of his books, and is close to meeting WP:RELPEOPLE#4 "Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on religious matters/writing." RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rebecca. I have some reading to do. As this is nearing a week, could I ask an admin to roll over for another week for fuller discussion of this additional material. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Could you also just clarify: "He is considered as one of four English evangelical scholars in the second half of the 20th century." Considered as what? Leading Anglican Evangelicalscholar? Something else? And by whom? This could satisfy notability on its own if verifiable. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, the book Priesthood in a New Millennium, which discusses him as an English evangelical scholar, is viewable on Google Books, for me - are you able to read it? The link I added above should take you to it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen Thank you again. I have now reviewed the material you have found. I think I misunderstood "He is considered as one of four English evangelical scholars..." as asserting more than it does, and yet he is indeed listed alongside three major evangelical scholars in Priesthood in a New Millennium. Not the most well known of books itself, it is nevertheless not a vanity piece and this is, I agree, sufficient evidence of WP:NAUTHOR, when considered alongside the other material. I note AuthorAuthor's remarks on some of the other sources, and I am not myself convinced that he definitely meets WP:RELPEOPLE#4 but this is good evidence that he may. Nevertheless, he only need be notable in one area, and on the basis that he meets WP:NAUTHOR, I am happy to change my own position to Keep. As soon as I have time, I intend to flesh out the bibliography and link it as appropriate. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response - The review of Life's Not Always Easy is by Fulcrum, described on its site as "a network of evangelical Anglicans." That is, unfortunately, not a book review by third-party reliable reviewer in a newspaper, periodical or magazine. The Church of England Newspaper included something about the book, but it is written by the subject and cannot be used as a source. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDEPENDENT says "Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." Fulcrum has a team of 13 people, not including this person [9]. The other journals I mentioned are also evangelical Christian sources. That does not mean they are not independent of this person - for any specialised area of study, it's journals dedicated to that specialism that will provide reviews of works in that area. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rebecca Green. Satisfies GNG. As a member of the General Synod of the Church of England from 1986 to 1996 he satisfies WP:POLITICIAN, because the General Synod is a national legislature (its Measures are sometimes considered to be primary legislation: see eg Human Rights Act 1998, s 21(1)). The article in A & C Black's Who's Who satisfies criteria 3 of WP:ANYBIO, it being a leading national biographical dictionary confined to notable people. James500 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Rebecca Green is a thorough editor. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, published a lot.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500 - "a member of the General Synod of the Church of England" is more than special. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth was a keep in 2012. Also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Booth_(priest) ended as a keep in 2012 due to coverage. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron was also a snow keep in 2018. I don't see that consensus has changed that quickly to reconsider these kinds of articles. I'll review the others, time permitting. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge was snow-kept because of the quality of book sources found in 2017. Meanwhile Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael was deleted in 2016 but re-created and worked on extensively since then. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury was a speedy keep in 2012. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham was kept in 2012 due to lack of a policy reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove was merged in 2018, for want of sourcing. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle was likewise deleted in 2018, pending anyone bold enough to redirect Joseph Verschoyle, which I did redirect it to Archdeacon of Achonry just now. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Wolfe (priest) was deleted and redirected to Archdeacon of Waterford. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Falkiner Goold was nominated in 2018, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Thomas (priest) in 2019, both noms by the trusted DGG, but without consensus, they were kept. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 3 January 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.