Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean M. Kelley

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. Seddσn ^talk 00:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean M. Kelley[edit]

Not WP:Notable. He is briefly mentioned in a few sources. However no real assertion of reliability is made: An author of 3 books, a minister, and an employee of a Christian organization. There is nothing that says why he is important enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People given obituaries in the New York Times are generally notable. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/14/us/dean-kelley-70-advocate-for-religious-freedom-dies.html Not a brief mention, but a good sized article. The "Christian organization" in question is the National Council of Churches: 100,000 local congregations and 45 million adherents, larger than most countries. They gave him a non-trivial obituary as well, http://www.ncccusa.org/news/090423kelleybio.html but of course that's not unconnected. Even the Scientologists liked him. http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol29I4/page38.htm --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I started the article after coming across his name in a news article and not finding the WP article I expected about him. I admit my article is not so great, I also have no interest in working on it more. If it is deleted as a bad article I have no objection. I don't know a whole lot about him but he seems to be fairly important. One of his books (Why Conservative Churches Are Growing) at least comes up quite a bit in discussions of the history of Christianity in modern America. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: evidence to date does not demonstrate the topic as meeting WP:BIO (as little, if any, "depth of coverage" has been demonstrated -- half the references are just for mention of one of his books). The obituary adds a small amount of depth, but not much -- and a single obituary certainly doesn't establish notability. I might have thought this AfD slightly premature, but as its creator has announced that he's ceasing development, it becomes more timely. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand you have to at least attempt a Google search before you vote. You aren't voting on the article as is, you are voting on the topic based on some research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You do understand" that your comment is ludicrous? -- [1] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets every requirement for verifiability and notability. You don't get in encyclopedias of religion and have an obit in the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times by being not notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GRuban. Clear claims of notability, non-trivial coverage in relaible sources. Edward321 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GRuban. The New York Times obituary calls him "a leading proponent of religious liberty" and the 1995 New York Times article calls him a "highly respected legal scholar." He was so prominent in the area of religious liberty issues and related sociology of religion discussions that even I've heard of him! Btw, I remember him being referred to as "Dean M. Kelley"; I think perhaps the article should be moved back there. -Exucmember (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our standard practice is that NYT obits, small or large, always prove notability. I can't remember any exceptions in the last two years at least. For local papers where they are not necessarily either selective or reliable Hrafn is right than a single obit does not prove notability, but this does not apply for the NYT and the Times, which are selective, and I challenge him to find an example where it was held otherwise. This nomination was not even a violation of BEFORE, as the sources were already in the article when it was nominated. DGG (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2009 (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.