Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parker T. Williamson

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parker T. Williamson[edit]

Non-notable individual: "Parker Williamson" achieves less than 700 google hits, while layman.org has an Alexa ranking of greater than 330'000. Prod tag removed. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 03:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, one book is self-published the other is published by the company.--Crossmr 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. ---J.S (t|c) 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I relatively puzzled by the logic here. Since when is 700 google hits too few? Especially since they rather firmly establish that the claim he was the editor was valid-you can read the editorials. And the notoriety earned which resulted in his expulsion is also noteworthy. I'm hardly fond of religous types, but that doesn't make them unnoteworthy. Unequivocal keep as meeting WP:NO. Let's put the prod back. Williamborg (Bill) 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the fact that there are only 131 [1] or so unique hits (my name for example gets well over twice that and I stopped going) and he fails to satisfy WP:BIO, as an author or otherwise. The two books are not published by any notable company.--Crossmr 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is limply established in the article, but it needs to be firmed up and verifiable sources added. This is a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until the notability is established per WP:BIO it IS a candidate for deletion.--Crossmr 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is work to be done but there are hundreds of articles in the same general shape as this one. Stormbay 01:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no provided evidence that he passes WP:BIO, and using other articles in a poor state to justify another is not a valid argument.--Crossmr

I believe in the collective time spent on this discussion, each of us could have taken an article like the one in question, and given it the elements needed to prevent this type of exercise. I stick with my original reason. Stormbay

Unless you're going to go out and generate notability for this individual I don't see what work is to be done here.--Crossmr 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Crossmr 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delete He'll never pass WP:BIO as it stands. I had a look around to see if I could fix this article up, but even referencing the current facts wouldn't help, and I can't see that his books have received multiple independent reviews or awards which might have saved him. That said, WP:BIO is only a guideline, so I could be swayed if somebody did a really good job on him Yomangani 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, as I see nothing that would put him in the ballpark of WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily self-published and no evidence of wide readership
Weak keep as per refs belowDlyons493 Talk 01:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He sounds like an interesting schismatic, in the tradition of Marcel Lefebvre and various antipopes. I think he's notable, particularly in light of various theatened or real splits in the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition. His 1996 book shows up in the Library of Congress catalog http://catalog.loc.gov , but not the later one. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. -AED 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know enough about theology to expand the article in sensible fashion, but he's got a pretty respectable number of media mentions.

"Presbyterian activist seeks funds cutoff", The Washington Times.[2]
"Passages: Deaths, promotions, and other tidbits from the religion world.", Christianity Today.[3]
"Standing Firm: Reclaiming Christian Faith in Times of Controversy", Theology Today.[4]
"PCUSA unit may void gadfly's credentials", Christian Century.[5]
"Minefields of pluralism - General Assembly Council of the Presbyterian Church decides not to censure pastor for his remarks", Christian Century.[6]
"Presbyterians address salvation issues", The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.[7] (brief mention, but cited as expert)
"Feminists' crusade sparks holy war: a national conference designed to bring women closer to God by questioning traditional worship only caused greater alienation", Insight on the News.[8] (brief mention, but cited as expert)

There may be more, but those were enough to satisfy me, so I stopped. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I second Hit bull, win steak and others, this guy has grown to become a prominent spokesman for an important dissedent wing of his church. If he merits inclusion in all these articles from respected journals and newspapers, he merits an article on Wikipedia. technopilgrim 19:14, 4 August 2006 (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.