Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Chamberlain

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 (NAC) This has gone on long enough; on reading through the !votes, it seems to me that the subject's publications allow him to (barely) pass GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chamberlain[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC and none of the content is supported by references (the sole reference contains no information about him). T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 01:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now as I found some links at Books and browser but nothing convincingly better. Pinging past users DreamGuy, Graeme Bartlett, Juliancolton and The-Pope and also DGG who is interested with these subjects. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 4 books, not rigorously academic but very respectable, from a major Christian publisher--the most widely held is in 274 libraries. I consider this a respectable record, but it will need reviews of the books to make sure. User:DGG
Comment I was just acting on behalf of an IP 173.183.69.145 to reverse the prod, but I myself had no opinion. I assume that 173.183.69.145 want to keep this at this point too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep There are book reviews for example at https://allforthegloryofhiskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/a-review-of-can-we-be-good-without-god-by-paul-chamberlain/ and http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec00/ and many others use it as a reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. We have to do something about self-published books and self-promotional wiki pages. Google search only gets pages cribbing from this one and other promotional sites like YouTube. Google News gets the wrong Paul Chamberlain for non-notable things. This person doesn't meet any of Wikipedia's policies yet, and probably never will. 15:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. DreamGuy, sorry, but your comment is a total non sequitur. Baker Books and Intervarsity Press are major publishers of Evangelical Christian books, they're not self-publishing in the least.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per DGG's analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 24 November 2015 (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.