Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Callaway

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. --Coredesat 06:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Phil Callaway

I suspect copyvio, since the style of the text is similar to articles written by/about Callaway on the Christianity Today Web site, but I can't find a direct article there or elsewhere that this is a direct copyvio of. Otherwise, notability appears to be asserted and somewhat established, but only somewhat. Delete if copyvio shown (and I admit I can't show it, but it still seems to be there), weak keep if not shown. --Nlu (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (See comment below.) I haven't been able to find anything about him that was written by an uninvolved third party. I find lots of stuff he's written, his web site, publishers' blurbs about him, promos for his speaking engagements, but nothing that meets WP:RS. Without reliable third-party sources, we can't use what's on his web site. -- Donald Albury 18:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have a theory as to why it looks so much like a copy-vio. I think the original author used the John Bevere article as a template and then just plugged in stuff for this guy. ScottW 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, the version of the John Bevere article that was used, was actually a copyvio (I've since reverted). ScottW 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He had (today) two books in the 45K-55K range at Amazon.com, a third in the 125-150K range and there are enough reviews out there to meet the WP:BIO criteria "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". The best independent biography I found in a few minutes of effort is here, which looks like a reliable source to me as the online version of a print newspaper. GRBerry 16:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per GRBerry. Eluchil404 06:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've written a total replacement article version at this point in time, so if there was any copyvio I believe it is gone from the current incarnation of the article. GRBerry 03:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Given GRBerry's rewrite, I am inclined to withdraw the nomination. If there is an objection to withdrawing the nomination, please state so soon. --Nlu (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As there is no consensus for deletion, the article will be kept by default anyway. Given the re-write, I'm withdrawing my 'Delete' recommendation. -- Donald Albury 12:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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.