Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill McKeever

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 delete. After much-extended time for discussion, consensus is now clear. BD2412 T 03:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McKeever[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)

McKeever does not appear to meet the requirements laid out by WP:NOTE generally, WP:PERSON particularly, or (if considered as an academic) WP:ACADEMIC. The article was created 15 years ago and remains a stub with one source, which is self-published. The content of the article, mostly a bibliography of McKeever's work, can seemingly be merged with Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and related articles. The article was previously tagged as potentially not notable but later had that tag removed removed shortly afterward by the same editor due to "niche notability," presumably within criticism of the church. A cursory view of usual sources to establish notability turns up McKeever's work directly, but not anything yet in the way of secondary sources that establish his work's importance. Without evidence that McKeever's work has received significant attention, it seems that an article about him personally is not warranted under notability guidelines. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject comes no where even close to meeting the GNG, notability for academics, or really any other notability guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject has published several books with reasonably well-established evangelical publishing houses, so WP:NAUTHOR is plausible. I only managed to find one review so far [1], but my search was rather cursory. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another user (@Genericusername57:) found a second review of the same book as well, in addition to Jacobson's review that you linked:
  - Pyle, D. Charles (1996). "Review of Questions to Ask Your Mormon Friend: Challenging the Claims of Latter-day Saints in a Constructive Manner". FARMS Review of Books. 8 (2): 231–250. ISSN 1099-9450. JSTOR 44792720.

I'll note that this review serves more as an extended response to McKeever's book than anything else. I'll further note that Jacobson's review explicitly presents their view: "Questions to Ask Your Mormon Friend is little more than a rehashing of material drawn from previous anti-Mormon books." Given the content of these reviews (and more that User:Genericusername57 is presently finding), it seems that McKeever may be more notable than we thought, though of course among two very particular groups. Still not enough for me to withdraw my proposal, but worth considering. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't think there are enough book reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. Christianity Today has mentioned him a few times in passing (example). It's possible that there are offline print sources covering him and his work, but I don't have the requisite library access to go look for them. Cheers, gnu 57 18:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, and selectively merge anything worthwhile into Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints per nom. While there's some progress towards WP:NAUTHOR, no one has managed to turn up sufficient evidence of impact to justify the standalone article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2021 (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.