Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wood (Christian apologist) (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Wood (Christian apologist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

David Wood (Christian apologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt the notability of this per WP:GNG, most sources on this article are either self-published or trivial mentions let alone significant coverage. A quick look yieled no presence of three reliable sources with none of them consisting of sustained coverage, in my findings I acknowledge that Mr. Wood had contributed in a book but this seems to be published by a self-publisher and I deem it to be subject to WP:USESPS. I had initially applied the {{Notability}} tag before it was reverted due to this being a "long-standing article with numerous sources", I disagree with this per WP:NEXIST and I would appreciate if another consensus is gathered on this. NAADAAN (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. for an odd reason the past nominations were not on the talk page's history, I still stand that a new consensus is needed since the first AfD that was concluded dates from nearly 13 years ago and there hasn't been any sustained coverage since and the 2nd AfD voted primarily for delete. NAADAAN (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete. I'm normally an inclusionist, and have some doubt about my ability to be impartial in a case where someone's sole purpose in life seems to be spreading religious intolerance, hence the qualification "probably". But I fail to see any particularly noteworthy facts in this article—being arrested for disturbing the peace seems to be one of his chief accomplishments, and that's not particularly noteworthy in itself, even if he got an apology and compensation. Someone has gone through and sourced this article very thoroughly, but almost entirely with sources that are either self-published, promotional, or which cater to a narrow niche of like-minded viewers. I'm not sure that this individual veers over into "hate speech", but I can't see what the justification for this article is. What is his source of notability, besides appearing in videos touting his miraculous conversion from juvenile delinquent, criticizing Islam, and peddling intolerance? All of that sounds very ordinary to me, and being ordinary on tape doesn't make it more noteworthy. P Aculeius (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course a banned YouTube-creator on a topic that is not bon-ton in establishment circles in Western countries won't have much of articles to go by. What a disingenuous point to make. Anyone online who is even somewhat outside the establishment right probably recognizes him, however. This deletion discussion (with VERY few participants) looks like a blatant attempt to get him a bit memory-holed with a veneer of "due process". He is very notable within the anti-Islam scene, which is all that should matter. Furthermore, caring that Islam is a "minority" relgion is a hideously Western-centric view. There are tons of users of English Wikipedia in Muslim-majority countries. 78.22.113.217 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NMO, I don't see how he wouldn't be in "bon-ton [with the] 'establishment'" as you said. Your remark regarding "VERY few participants" can be explained by the fact this was started yesterday. "He is very notable within the anti-Islam scene" WP:YANARS, there nonetheless is a general criteria for people to be considered reliable enough to warrant an article independent of any 'scene' they're in. I agree with your assertion about concerns of Islam supposedly being a "minority" religion but this is off-topic. NAADAAN (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an odd perspective. Precisely what does this have to do with "the establishment" or its supposed circles? If you mean that he's only known in a small niche community consisting of like-minded people, that hardly demonstrates notability. He could certainly be notable as an anti-Islamic bigot, but nothing in the article suggests that he's particularly notable: there are lots of notable hatemongers, but just giving interviews to niche sources, attending protests, and self-promotion doesn't make one notable.
You claim that he's "very notable within the anti-Islam scene", but what's the evidence of this? What about this makes him notable to the general public? What does this "scene" consist of? Surely not everyone who has a negative view of Islam. If this is someone whom the general public might be expected to recognize, why are the only mentions of him in non-specialist sources about being arrested for disturbing the peace? Lots of people make the news for negative reasons without being particularly notable.
The point about the discussion having "VERY few participants" suggests that you're unfamiliar with AfD. Most discussions only attract a few participants, especially if the subject is little-known but not obviously a hoax, and in the first couple of days. I only saw the AfD because I was notified as a member of WikiProject West Virginia. Attracting four participants within the first day of discussion is reasonably good. P Aculeius (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure being known in anti-whatever circles gets you notability. He appears to have little to no coverage in any sources we'd use for notability. He's mentioned many times, but always about getting arrested or about what he said, not really about him. And to be honest, most AfD discussions get very few participants, it's seen a drop in the last few years. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources in the article arguably aren't the greatest, but they are certainly not mainly "self-published or trivial mentions" as claimed by the deletion nominator. The sources in the article are mainly Christian media and local newspapers, which qualify as WP:RS, and even gives detailed information on his personal background (not very "trivial"). There are a few references to self-published sources, but not to the extent of the main content of the article. The article's content also seem to demonstrate notability. Thismess (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to this, I have compiled a breakdown of every source on the article that you are free to verify by your own care and refute:
    • [1, 4, 5, 6, 17, 19, 24, 31-38] Self-published and/or WP:ABOUTSELF;
    • [2] A passing mention on a local newspaper, most of it directly citing the Acts17 website (self-published);
    • [3] A Google search, WorldCat, and a search on the Wikipedia Library yielded nothing so I am unable to verify it, making me think this could be fabricated;
    • [2, 7, 8] Interview which fails to be independent;
    • [9] A translation of [7] which is a non-independent interview;
    • [10, 12, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28] Passing and/or trivial mention (mentioned twice or less) notwithstanding reliability concerns in some sources;
    • [11] Article written by Mr. Wood which fails to be independent;
    • [13] Opinion piece which are "rarely reliable for statements of fact" but could be a suitable source if reliability is proven;
    • [18] "The Religion of Conquest" doesn't seem awfully reputable and it seems to be a website advertising Mr. Wood's show, raising COI concerns;
    • [21] Dissertation written by Mr. Wood which can be "considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" per WP:SCHOLARSHIP;
    • [24] I deem this to be reliable, but it doesn't have much relevance in of its own and raises concerns of WP:BLP1E notwithstanding that Mr. Wood is not the main focus of the article;
    • [29, 30] Self-published per WP:NEWSBLOG;
    Please note that per notability is defined per WP:BASIC as there being "significant coverage in multiple (at least three) published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" which I am afraid this article doesn't fulfill. NAADAAN (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, I just added seven new reliable sources to supplement the article, just to establish that he has been covered multiple times in WP:RS. Thismess (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here isn't so much that the sources aren't reliable—it's that they're not sources that tend to demonstrate notability, and nothing that you've cited them for is particularly notable. Even if we suppose everything in the article to be correct and proven, there's still not much basis for concluding that this person is in any way notable. The fact that the only thing cited to non-specialist media merely indicates that he was arrested and later compensated in connection with a protest, tends to underscore his lack of notability. P Aculeius (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His personal life and Islamophobia seem rather trivial. Many people have similar stories or views. What about these things makes this person notable, besides the fact that he's publicized them in niche sources that only a small number of people watch? P Aculeius (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That follower count sounds impressive, but I don't really know whether it is, much less how significant it is. If that's the most noteworthy thing about him, I still don't see how notable he can be. Surely there must be some coverage of him in non-specialist media, beyond the mere fact that he was arrested at a protest, and then compensated after suing the city. If not, it's hard to see how notable he could be. P Aculeius (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference against the claims that he is not notable in any way, it should also be mentioned that he has a total of nearly 200 million views on YouTube, and even his Wikipedia page has close to 500 daily views (that is 44,000 views in 90 days), both of which are very significant numbers. He is clearly a notable person in any normal meaning of the word, who attracts a lot of public interest. Thismess (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of contention isn't that he lacks total notability in any way, it is that he does not meet the general notability criteria for having a page on Wikipedia. If you take a look at WP:NYOUTUBE, you can see previous consensus and precedent of content chreators who have tenfolds as many numbers as Mr. Wood and still were not deemed notable enough to warrant an article. NAADAAN (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but they probably didn't have any coverage in third party reliable sources, which Wood indeed has. Thismess (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't good sources—nearly all of the ones that aren't self-published or promotional are obscure, niche, or fringe sources, or are being cited for things that don't go toward demonstrating the notability of the subject; for instance, the discussion of an Islamic community center proposed in lower Manhattan. Wood may have had an opinion about that, but having an opinion about something doesn't make anyone notable! Nor does being acquitted of inciting a riot, which isn't even cited to a specific author or publication, but to "Associated Press re-print", an utterly worthless citation as it supplies no details that could be used to locate the source or assess its value (although if all it does is say he was one of four people who were acquitted, it wouldn't demonstrate notability anyway). Nor does the fact that various movements or organizations that Wood is supposedly involved in have been called "hate groups" by the Southern Povery Law Center. Unless they have something substantial to say about Wood, they don't go toward proving his notability! P Aculeius (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've heard you already. How many times are you going to rant about the same thing over and over? Thismess (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who keeps repeating that he's notable because there are reliable third-party sources in the article. P Aculeius (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I just added three more journal/book sources that describe him and his work. That's in addition to the two SPLC sources and the seven other references I recently added. There are now around 30 third party reliable sources in the article. Thismess (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to give an update on my improvements to the article over the last several days. In order to more firmly establish the notability of the article, I have now added around 20 new sources to the article, making the total of third party reliable sources to around 35 sources. The new sources include some commentary on Wood's work by prominent individuals/journals/organizations, and a couple new stories, which was a key issue. I have also removed several unnecessary and undue self-published sources, leaving only some that provide a few sentences of supplementary information. I believe my improvements to the article now firmly demonstrates the notability of the subject of this article. Thismess (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to examine new additions to the article since its nomination. But please, do not count sources, it's quality that matters, not quantity. Having 30 or 37 mediocre sources will not convince editors to Keep an article while 3 high quality sources can be enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, a lot of these look like passing mentions NAADAAN (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to be known for being a sort of a "loudmouth", in getting his points across. I don't see much of any extensive sourcing in RS in the article; guy gets arrested and says stuff people don't like, but doesn't seem to have enough coverage about him as an individual to get an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disliking Wood's style or hating his guts as the first "delete" vote on here is not a valid reason for deletion. Thismess (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, it's the paltry sourcing I can't see as useful. There just isn't enough of it for doing whatever it is he does. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stupid reason for deletion. One couldn't have brought a weaker case than the one listed by yourself. Because you find someone a "loudmouth" shouldn't have any bearing as to whether they should have a wikipedia page or not.
    Based on the weekly page views, a following of over 700k as well as hundreds of millions of YouTube views, it's difficult not to say he is notable. Especially with his affiliations with various well-known companies such as the Babylon Bee, Jay Smith and other well known individuals and organisations, the sourcing has greatly improved.
    One paragraph from yoursehas full of opinion has no validity in the overall discussion. Leftistman (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment about the sourcing above, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is purely based on faulty sourcing, not numbers. There have been previous consensus of influencers with more views and a bigger following than Mr. Wood getting their article removed purely based on sourcing. NAADAAN (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe for you, but this user also admitted a problematic personal bias against Wood for deletion, same as the first delete vote. Thismess (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, he's a subject matter expert in his field, we still have no sourcing about him, doesn't change my point. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ThisMess. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it: I'm with Oaktree on this one. 2600:6C52:4C40:E77:31EE:3361:AE9B:AA57 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being this user's first edit ever on Wikipedia, with no argumentation whatsoever, I'll assume it does not hold much weight. Thismess (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the rush? If/since this page has some documentation, but if so non-noteworthy, won't it just die a normal death? I vote leave it on for a year and see how many people visit this page. Isn't Wikipedia for the public? I don't think the footprint is costing us that much space. Why not let public interest prove its usefulness long-term?Feeblemind57 (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)FeebleMind57[reply]
  • Keep. Source 4 and Source 5 has established that he is a notable Christian apologist. Both sources are not self-published. Source number 19 showed notability but as the journal is likely to be biased it may not count. The fact that he is noted in 13 shows that he has notability. Source 13 didn't see Wood in a good light, showing that this particular source is not WP:ABOUTSELF. Source 20 is quite reliable, and mentions him by name as an example of Christian apologetics, showing that he is notable as one. Source 22 also shows notability as he is mentioned in a journal that is not related to Christianity. In short, I see enough notability to keep this article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Hard to find any noteworthy elements in the profile of a typical alt-right YouTube personality. Perhaps he might be in the future, as of now, there is a dearth of appropriate WP:RS and :WP:IS sources and I strongly support its deletion. Otherwise, this could potentially lead to a proliferation of similar requests for countless other relatively famous (or infamous) YouTubers, which will set a counterproductive precedent StarkReport (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why him allegedly being "alt-right" has anything to do with his notability. I don't see him as "typical" either, given that he has a PhD in philosophy and has received praise from prominent scholars/philosophers for his work, as noted in the article (and criticism by the SPLC). He has also been noted with noteworthy and controversial public activism. The article is also full of WP:RS (including high-quality sources), contrary to your claim. Thismess (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who have praised his work, such as conservative Christian newspapers and other far-right political bloggers, hardly meet the WP:IIS:

    An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective

    and the purported "full of WP:RS" appears to be WP:NOTRELIABLE.
    Again, he might merit an article in the future, akin to Pamela Geller, but as of yet, there is a clear insufficiency of significant substance to warrant coverage. The only viable option is deletion. StarkReport (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is not a single "far-right blog" or "conservative Christian newspaper" that has praised his work in the article. Scholar Michael R. Licona has, philosopher William Lane Craig has, theologian Scott Ventureyra has, and author William Kilpatrick has. The SPLC has criticised his work. All providing notability in one way or another. And your claim that the article has no WP:RS for other coverage of Wood's activities is a blatant lie. Thismess (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with NAADAAN's source review and I haven't found anything else in reliable sources that have significant coverage, rather than trivial mentions. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the source review was made prior to a number of new sources being added to the article, including high-quality books/journals. Thismess (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article as shown in NAADAAN's source eval, and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.

Article has been refbombed, but if someone finds WP:THREE sources that meet WP:IS and WP:RS and have WP:SIGCOV which requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject, ping me. Please don't list a dozen sources, the three best sources will do to demonstrate notability.  // Timothy :: talk  06:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seems to be a misunderstanding about notability where mentions of a name are assumed to confer notability. I waded through as many of the refs as I could (and some were not readily available to me) but nothing that I could see got close to WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll address the latest comments with more concrete points on some sources that can not be deemed "trivial":
Ref 4 and 20 gives non-trivial summaries of Wood's YouTube/online work in an academic journal and a news magazine (quoted in the article), giving him notability as an apologist
Ref 9 is an in-depth local coverage of a debate with Wood and an atheist, noting his arguments, which also intertwines with his background story as he notes
Ref 6, 13 and 14 are non-trivial academic discussions in books/article discussing Wood's background story in relation with his field of Christian apologetics, showing it has notability itself
And we have the 4-year lasting coverage of numerous news articles about his activities in Dearborn, which has been noted by even deletionists to have notability. Thismess (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (switched from above): Some of the sources above from Thismess put this individual over the GNG mark. [1], [2], [3]  // Timothy :: talk  19:04, 4 February 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Wood_(Christian_apologist)_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1204311868"