Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist)

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. There are some valid arguments made by those who wish to delete this, but there are also some very odd objections with a dubious basis, as well as some backhanded accusations of bad faith. I would suggest that the page's author seek help at WP:RSN to help them determine which of the sources they wish to use would be suitable and which would not. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist)

Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO reddogsix (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - There is no obvious reason that this page should be deleted. Edits were made to resolve the earlier criticism by reddogsix on three points:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page."

(1)The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (October 2012)

(2)This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (October 2012)

(3) This article's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. (October 2012)

In response to the above:

(1) Armstrong has a long and established record in his area.

(2) There are no self-published sources on the page

(3) All the sources are reputable and independent third party publishers.

I strongly support this page being kept on, and am not sure why the deletion notice is continuing -- I have asked reddogsix to explain (his) further objections, but without a response. Durandus (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment- Forgive me for not responding sooner, but I was involved in "real-life". 8-)

As indicated above, the "individual [is] lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO." Please provide support as to how the individual meets the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Also please provide valid references in the article to support those comments. reddogsix (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete subject does not pass our notability guidelines. The general notability guideline asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article cites three sources: the subject's blog [1], a profile he wrote for Amazon [2] and an apologetic work written by the subject [3]. None of these are independent of the subject. A Google search reveals more things written by the subject and discussion of the subject on unreliable blogs and apologetics websites, but none of these is enough to confer notability. I see no reason to think that the subject meets any of the other criteria at WP:BIO. Hut 8.5 14:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep -

From WP:AUTHOR:

Extended content

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." A. The Foreword of Armstrong's first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003), was written by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.: advisor to Pope Paul VI, catechist for Blessed Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, a major Catholic catechist and author, whose cause is now being considered for sainthood. He gave a glowing recommendation of Armstrong's apologetics in the Foreword, and he is listed on Wikipedia, too. B. Dr. Scott Hahn: probably the most well-known Catholic apologist today, wrote the Foreword to Armstrong's book, More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (2002; albeit self-published). He has a Wikipedia entry as well. C. Joseph Pearce: arguably the leading Catholic biographer alive today, wrote the Foreword to Armstrong's latest book, The Quotable Newman. He also has a Wikipedia entry. D. The esteem and importance in which Armstrong and his work is held by virtually all the most important fellow Catholic apologists across the board is shown in what they have said about him, in unsolicited remarks. These are listed on his Literary Resume page online: Dr. Scott Hahn: "Good stuff. Keep up the great work . . . rather remarkable cyber-talents." / "Thanks again for the great work you're doing for Christ and His Church." Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas (prominent Catholic apologist and author): "I always appreciate your work." Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the live call-in TV show on EWTN: The Journey Home): "You utterly amaze me! Such good stuff . . . Dave, keep up your effective and eternally valuable apologetic journalism!" Patrick Madrid (well-known Catholic apologist and prolific author [listed in Wikipedia]; editor of Envoy Magazine): "I admire, as ever, your fantastic and penetrating work for Christ and His Church." / "Keep up the fantastic work with "Biblical Catholicism." All of us at Envoy love it and often refer people to it." Mark Brumley (CEO of Ignatius Press): "Your site continues to look good and to be among the most useful." Amy Welborn (well-known Catholic author and blogmaster; listed in Wikipedia): "There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong." Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books; listed in Wikipedia): "I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site." Moreover, the fact that Armstrong has been published by four major Catholic publishers of apologetics is significant: Sophia Institute Press (it specializes in Catholic classics, and Armstrong is its best-selling author): five books; Our Sunday Visitor (the largest Catholic publisher, with a Wikipedia entry): a pamphlet (Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked) and notes for the bestselling New Catholic Answer Bible; Catholic Answers: the largest Catholic apologetics organization, and Saint Benedict Press (eight books in all, and a very popular pamphlet) shows that he is widely respected in this sub-community, as an author and apologist. He also worked on staff for three years as an online moderator for the forum at The Coming Home Network: a major and well-known Catholic organization. He has been published in many of the important Catholic apologetics magazines, multiple times: This Rock (now Catholic Answers Magazine), The Catholic Answer, The Coming Home Newsletter, Envoy Magazine, and The Latin Mass, among others. He has appeared about twenty times on Catholic radio shows,several of them nationally syndicated (EWTN), such as Catholic Answers Live (twice), Catholic Connection (Teresa Tomeo), Kresta in the Afternoon (three times), and Faith and Family Live (Steve Wood), among others. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Armstrong specializes in "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" (the name of his website), and this is considered an important aspect of modern Catholic apologetics. He consciously writes books for the masses and tries to make Catholicism more understandable to them. If it is objected that he is not an academic, it should also be noted that many of the most famous and influential and respected Catholic apologists were and are not, either, or (like Armstrong) had no theological degree or formal training. G. K. Chesterton had no college degree at all. Peter Kreeft, Thomas Howard, and Malcolm Muggeridge were academics, but not in theology, as was the Anglican C. S. Lewis (an English professor). Karl Keating and Frank Sheed were lawyers. This is nothing new. There are plenty of lay Catholic apologists, fully encouraged by the Catholic Church. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Armstrong's work has been the subject of numerous prominent feature articles and interviews in the Catholic community. He has these listed online, on his Literary Resume page: A. He received the award, Website of the Year (for 1998) from the staff and advisors of Envoy Magazine, and was a finalist (with three others) for "Best New Evangelist" (Envoy, January/February 1999, 10). B. His website (online since February 1997, with nearly 2,500 articles) was positively reviewed in New Covenant magazine, August, 1998. C. "Dave Armstrong: Catholic Apologetics' "Socratic Evangelist," interview with, and article by Tim Drake, for the regular feature "Diplomatic Corps," Envoy Magazine, Spring 2002, volume 5.6, 8-9. D. Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004. E. Review of The Catholic Verses, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, October 2005; reprinted in Ignatius Insight. F. Review of The One-Minute Apologist, by Carl E. Olson, in National Catholic Register, August 26 - September 1, 2007 issue. G. His book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (Lulu) was reviewed by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in the January / February 2009 issue of The Catholic Response (Vol. V, No. 4, pp. 31-32). Fr. Stravinskas will also in the near future write reviews of Armstrong's two "officially published" books in 2012: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers) and The Quotable Newman (Sophia Institute Press). H. "'Can I Get a Quote on That?': An Interview With Dave Armstrong," Gilbert Magazine (Vol. 13, No. 5, March 2010, pp. 14-17; interviewer: Dale Ahlquist (who hosts shows on Chesterton on the EWTN television network), is a leading expert on Chesterton. This periodical is published by the American Chesterton Society (Ahlquist is President). It was devoted primarily to Armstrong's book, The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton. I. "My Two Conversions: An Interview with Spanish Journalist Itxu Díaz," of the Dicax Press Agency (April 2011) J. "Ten must-see web resources for Catholics" (by Mark Shea; OSV Newsweekly, 21 February 2012; Armstrong's full-time apologetics ministry was one of the ten profiled). K. "Lessons from Catholic Evangelists," by Jim Graves, The Catholic World Report, 22 August 2012. [Armstrong was cited at length as one of five interviewees in the article] L. Reviews of Armstrong's books on Amazon come from a variety of well-known, active fellow apologists, and his books are rated highly (usually four stars or above). "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Armstrong's body of work (even ten of his self-published Lulu books, as in this instance), was regarded so highly that a set of them was published by Logos Bible Software: the leading company devoted to online / computer / electronic Christian and biblical resources. They offer the Dave Armstrong Collection. This is doubly significant because Logos is primarily a Protestant organization. They do have a Catholic division now, and Armstrong is one of the few living Catholic authors included. If we include these published works, it brings Armstrong's total of "officially" (not only self-published works) to eighteen, which is quite notable and significant for any author to achieve. Furthermore, the libraries that stock Armstrong's books indicate the importance given to them: A. A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press, 2003) -- this can be verified at Google books -- is carried in the libraries of Notre Dame, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Marquette University, Harvard Divinity School, and at least 23 others. B. The Catholic Verses (Sophia Institute Press, 2004) is in eleven libraries. C. The One-Minute Apologist (Sophia Institute Press, 2004) is also carried in eleven libraries. D. Even Protestant seminaries and colleges carry his books. Dallas Theological Seminary has three of Armstrong's Sophia books. Liberty University has The Catholic Verses. Hope College, Geneva College, Abilene Christian University, Master's Seminary, and three others have one or more of his books. Moreover, his thus far self-published book, The Quotable Wesley, is being seriously considered for publication, by a major Wesleyan publisher, Beacon Hill Press (no small feat for a Catholic apologist, if it is accepted). Lastly, if it is objected that Armstrong publishes books on his own, in addition to his eighteen "official" ones, it should be noted that they (or a revision, as in one case) were later published by conventional publishers in four instances (and with three of those, even with minimal additional editing). This includes his most famous title, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. If The Quotable Wesley is "officially" published, that will be the fifth time this has happened. This, along with the Logos Collection, indicates the high quality even of his self-published work, and of his editing skills (in the case of collections of quotations). His body of "official" work (eighteen volumes published by reputable five publishers, including a Protestant one) is indeed substantial and noteworthy: hardly deserving of the disdain shown by the reviewers who wish to delete his entry.

Logos-Word 15:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC) — Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not going to wade through everything you've posted above, especially since much of it is obviously flawed. The standards of the people who have published his books has nothing to do with notability, the libraries that carry his books have nothing to do with notability, his theological qualifications have nothing to do with notability, the people who have said nice things about his books have nothing to do with notability, the number of times his books have been printed has nothing to do with notability. Hut 8.5 21:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright; granted I am new at Wikipedia and am not intimately familiar with every jot and tittle of Wikipedia guidelines, but it seems to me that I addressed (at least in part of my remarks) what you were asking for. If you dismiss all the elements you cite above, they still (it seems to me) have relevance for the inclusion of an author (but maybe not), which is one thing "reddogsix" was critiquing. If we stick to notability alone (your big beef), let's look at what you yourself objected to. You wrote: "The general notability guideline asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I provided plenty of those (if you even read them), and they are (seems to me) significant:

1) Book reviews in well-known Catholic periodicals: Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Ignatius Insight, National Catholic Register, The Catholic Response, and Gilbert Magazine. If you are unfamiliar with these (depending on how much you know about the Catholic and Catholic apologetics worlds), you can look them up (especially the first and third).

2) Website award (1998) from Envoy Magazine, and website reviews in New Covenant and OSV Newsweekly.

3) Interviews in Envoy Magazine and The Catholic World Report.

Between all of them, that is eight different periodicals. Is that enough? How many are required? Does a high number of published books (by independent publishers) have to do with notability? Does being published by five notable publishers have to do with it? If 18 books of such a nature is not "notable" in a field (Armstrong's number), what is? 30, 40 books? Virtually no Catholic apologists have accomplished that, nor many authors in any field. So it leaves me scratching my head, as to what is required here. As I read the notability guidelines, Armstrong seems to qualify.

Logos-Word 19:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)— Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete As already stated above, that's a lot of text to read; and frankly, I don't know where to begin. While some of it does bring up a few points, most of it still doesn't help the article meet notability guidlines. Strictly as an editor reviewing at the article, this doesn't even have enough citations. The three references are made up by two from the subject's blog, and one from a blogger that reccomends the subject's work. While the last one was from a reputable source, it can still be argued if that really counts. To have notability you need to have citations from a number of sources, which the article does not have. How many books that subject has published does not contribute to notability, as already stated above. I'm going to have to put my vote in for deletion on this one. CharmlessCoin (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I spent a few hours today adding several links to the article, precisely in order to overcome these objections, but that has been deleted[4] (some kind of "conflict edit"): apparently because I added a link to Armstrong's blog and this was impermissible (as I said above, I'm new at this Wikipedia stuff). Now we have to re-invent the wheel. The last comment again gives the same tired objection of not having "citations from a number of sources," which is what I described above and tried to add to the article. But if the new material is simply deleted for some reason, then I have wasted my time. Armstrong's credentials: which I believe meet notability criteria, are mentioned above. I described them in detail because people were making out that he had none (the original complaint implied that he was self-published only). So I provided plenty of his credentials (what I thought was relevant for notability; perhaps some of it was not), only to have people complain that I write too much. Oh well; I tried. Logos-Word 20:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)— Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - What continues to be missed in the above dissertation is the lack of verifiable, independent, reliable sources needed to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Sorry, Logos-Word, you still are not getting it. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, a reliable source needs to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. One signal that a source engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Since anyone can post at amazon.com and amazon.com does not publish corrections, amazon.com is not a Wikipedia reliable source. Deleting your posting of amazon.com was correct.[5] Under the same reasoning, Wikipedia itself does not qualify as a Wikipedia reliable source. Your posting to the site socrates58(dot)blogspot(dot)com triggered the automated User:XLinkBot. Not only is socrates58(dot)blogspot(dot)com not a Wikipedia reliable source, it is a URL that has caused problems in Wikipedia to the point to where it was added to an automated bot so that a computer can be on the look out for it. Forwards in your books are not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic as required by WP:GNG. In fact, forwards in your book are physically connected to the topic! What you say in an interview is not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic as required by WP:GNG, although what the interviewer says in the interview is independent of the Dave Armstrong topic. Your books are not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic as required by WP:GNG, but reviews of the book, what others quote from your book in their newspaper article, magazine article, and book may be independent of the Dave Armstrong topic. Websites and blogs generally are not Wikipedia reliable sources because they usually do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You need to forget the sources that are not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and the sources that are not Wikipedia reliable sources. Posting those will only bring resistance to the topic. Instead, concentrate on sources that are independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and are Wikipedia reliable sources (which usually are newspaper articles, books, and magazone articles). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - the article doesn't have any sources at all. Though this is often a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM type of problem, I don't think it is in this case. I couldn't find anything I would consider to be a reliable source so the subject fails WP:GNG as far as I am concerned. Happy to consider sources if someone can find some. This issue here seems not to be that notability has not been asserted; more than it has been asserted but not verified. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note - I collapsed a portion of Logos-Word's analysis (it is not deleted; reviewing admins will still read it) just to make the whole discussion easier to read. It's not an effort to remove someone's opinion or censor comments - it's just to allow people to move right to the subsequent discussion about the arguments Logos-Word has suggested should be considered. If anyone is unhappy, please feel free to revert. The edit was made in good faith. Have also cleaned up some indentation which was messing with the AFD log and some other formatting stuff. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong' - User:Jimbo Wales/Quotations: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." The Biography of Dave Armstrong does not meet W:GNG. The keep iVotes above assert that a Writings of Dave Armstrong topic meet WP:GNG, and I don't think there is disagreement on that. We keep running into this same problem with scholars, authors, and other writers: the independent reliable sources do not write about their life but do write about their writings. They cite their writings, they quote from their writings, they comment on their writings. Wikipedia has only two "Writings of" articles,[6]. WP:GNG does not require the writings of a person to be famous writings. GNG only requires that there be enough independent coverage on a topic for a stand alone article on that topic. The sum of all human knowledge includes topics that are limited to the writings of scholars, authors, and other writers. At present, we force writer topics to qualify for a biography article to allow their independently sourced writing information to appear in Wikipedia in a stand alone article. Wikipedia needs to change that to align it's efforts to match what the reliable sources in fact are writing when it comes to scholars, authors, and other writers. This Dave Armstrong topic is as good starting test case as any (perhaps an even better test case due to the nature of the writings). Keep and rename to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong. If the closing admin closes as keeps renames to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong,' I would be happy to bring this same argument at DRV as a test case. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've added many sources to the entry in accordance with the requirements helpfully explained above (as far as I understand them, as a rookie). They were all published articles, reviews, etc., in paper periodicals (NOT web pages). Also, I wonder why Armstrong would be considered less worthy of a Wikipedia page than fellow Catholic authors / bloggers / apologists like Mark P. Shea, Amy Welborn, and Carl E. Olson? How are they so different from him? I'm trying to understand what makes for a "notable" author. 18 "officially published" books in a field and numerous articles and book reviews and features in print (real magazines) do not indicate this? In this instance, it is a sub-genre of writing, "Catholic apologetics." According to Karl Keating (author, apologist, and President of Catholic Answers: the largest and most influential Catholic apologetics organization), a book that sells upwards of 10,000 copies is considered a bestseller in this niche field. Armstrong has many of those (at least five), and has had twelve books published by three different reputable publishers (one not even primarily Catholic) this year alone. What does it take, then? The comments from Uzma Gamal (12:57, 12 October 2012) were very interesting. -- Logos-Word 15:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• You put further reading sources in the article, none of which have a URL link.[7] People sometimes do not use URL links when they want to make it more difficult for others to check that information while giving the impression that there are plenty of sources for the topic. You may want to add URL links to each of those further reading sources by placing the information in Template:Citations. The Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) article does not cite any references. "Citing" to references means placing a footnote at the end of a sentence as described in How to place an inline citation using ref tags. As for being worthy of a Wikipedia page, that is meaningless. Importance notability or significance notability is not what Wikipedia:Notability is about. Have you looked at the WP:GNG link I posted multiple times? The information from that link is why AfD deletion decisions are based on quantity of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. How many sentences do you think you can write about Armstrong having at least five books that have sold upwards of 10,000 copies and has had twelve books published by three different reputable publishers? I can get one sentence out of that. Should Wikipedia have a one sentence article? That would not make any sense.
  You ask what makes for a "notable" author. Are you asking what makes a what makes a Wikipedia "notable" life of an author or what makes a what makes a Wikipedia "notable" writings of an author? The two are different topics and AfD is about whether one topic listed at AfD qualifies for a stand alone article in Wikipedia. The topic for Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) is about the life of an author and that is what is being reviewed now at AfD. Do you think the Wikipedia reliable sources are writing about his life or writing about Armstrong's own writings? For example, does "Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004" write about Armstrong's life? No. It writes about Armstrong's own writings. "Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004" counts under WP:GNG towards a Wikipedia article on Writings of Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) qualifying for a stand alone article at AfD. "Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004" does not help at this AfD discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Also, you added to the article, "He married Judy Kozora on October 6, 1984 and they have four children: three boys and a girl and live in a suburb of Detroit. She returned to the Church on the same day Armstrong was received."[8] What happened to the footnote at the end of each of those two sentences? How are people reading the article going to check -- to verify -- that the information in a sentence comes from a Wikipedia reliable source independent of the Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) topic if you do not add a footnote to the end of a sentence? Wikipedia:Verifiability was made one of only three Wikipedia core policies so that it would be worthy of people's attention above just about all else. Wikipedia articles are built from reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If "He married Judy Kozora on October 6, 1984 and they have four children: three boys and a girl and live in a suburb of Detroit. She returned to the Church on the same day Armstrong was received" is not a summary of the writings of a reliable source that is independent of the Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) topic, then there is no basis to include that information in the Wikipedia article. The same is true for all that text under the "Biography" subsection. Where is the footnote at the end of each of those sentences that will allow a reader to verify that the information in a sentence comes from a Wikipedia? I see above that you wonder why Armstrong would be considered less worthy of a Wikipedia page than fellow Catholic authors / bloggers / apologists like Mark P. Shea, Amy Welborn, and Carl E. Olson. That actually is addressed in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Uzma Gamal asked: "You put further reading sources in the article, none of which have a URL link.[7] People sometimes do not use URL links when they want to make it more difficult for others to check that information while giving the impression that there are plenty of sources for the topic." Nice try. I did that precisely because you wrote, above: "Websites and blogs generally are not Wikipedia reliable sources . . . Posting those will only bring resistance to the topic. Instead, concentrate on sources that are independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and are Wikipedia reliable sources (which usually are newspaper articles, books, and magazone [sic] articles)." Thus, I posted articles from periodicals. Most of them do not have a link since most are not online, or no longer online (and you said websites and blogs are unreliable anyway): but they can be checked, just as any bibliographical source can be. These articles are "out there." They exist. Others have a link, but it is to Armstrong's site (he cut-and-pasted the articles onto his blog in several instances; e.g., the interview with Dale Ahlquist of Gilbert Magazine, about Chesterton), and I was informed above that links to his blog are automatically deleted, because (who knows why?) it has caused problems of some sort in the past. Thus, those sources can't be added, and no one can go read them (unless they search independently). Yet other articles are only available in a temporary archive at Catholic Answers (e.g., four articles published in This Rock in 2004), so I thought it best not to make those links. Links to the articles I added (where they exist at all: and some are already obsolete) can be found on Armstrong's "Literary Resume" page on his blog (linked from the top right of the home page): this is where most of the info. I have added was found. Other possible links would be on Internet Archive only, which I deemed best not to bother including (figuring -- the way it has been going -- the validity would be disputed).

This is my explanation for what I did. It was a perfectly rational response from a "Wikipedia rookie" (I probably screwed up again in some fashion, regarding these endless guidelines, but I'm explaining my rationale, from where I sit and what I know about Wikipedia policies at this point: which obviously ain't much! LOL). The whole process is far more complicated than I ever realized. In any event, I've spent more than enough time here (way too much, in retrospect). If the article goes down, it goes down. It's pointless for me to spend more of my time on this when it seems to be a futile effort, on all counts. I will say, however (on a positive note) that it's heartening to me to see that Wikipedia has such high standards, because I'm an enthusiastic advocate of Wikipedia and use it all the time (and always defend it when folks run it down as a supposedly altogether unreliable, unscholarly source). Thus, despite my present exasperation and frustration over having wasted so much of my time for what may end up as "nothing", I'm truly delighted to see this rigor and high concern for accuracy and substantiation. I'm one with y'all there. But I don't have time to keep pursuing this, and it's no high priority to me at all. It's become a "diminishing returns" scenario, so I'm done with the effort. Thanks for listening to my opinions and bearing with my considerable ignorance of Wikipedia policies (for which I apologize). For what it's worth, I agree with the reasoning that the article could or should be kept as a "Writings of" article (presumably modified accordingly). That makes sense, but others (who know the ropes around here) will have to argue that case. Logos-Word 11:07, 13 October 2012 (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.