Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don K. Preston

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. Daniel (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don K. Preston[edit]

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

Completing nomination for an IP. Rationale (from WT:AFD):

I searched both google news and the google news archive and found no press coverage of him at all. [1] I also searched for references to him in google books and found only his self-published books [2]. Google scholar similarly did not turn up any coverage in academic journals. [3] Therefore, I think this person does not meet Wikipedia's basic notability criteria "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article has had the notability tag on it for two and a half years. Thanks. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

My completion of this nomination should not be seen as a !vote either way. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a former evangelist and/or minister is not notability. If he would have been a current minister or evangelism, it would be a different story. So far I have not seen any clear evidence that he is a notable former Church of Christ minister and/or evangelist. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The IP nom didn't search very hard, because adding "-inauthor:preston" to the GB search (and searching both with an without the middle initial) finds multiple books that cite him (usually to disagree with his point of view). Contra Ashbeckjonathan, it's probably the notability as an author rather than as a former minister/evangelist that's important. -- 101.119.15.245 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This source says: "Among the more prominent critics of 'dispensationalism' are such figures as Don K. Preston and John Anderson, who have been producing a wide array of literature and videos documenting the fallacies of the Christian Zionist teachings ". I don't know if he is prominent, but that is what this source asserts, so will err on the side of caution to keep. -- GreenC 07:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure whether to apply the test of WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF to this case, but he seems to fail both of them. What we are claiming as notability is the fact that he published a book about the Apocalypse of St. John that is supposed to have substantially contributed to the field of Protestant exegesis of that book in regards to the eschaton. While there may be a citation or two out there, a quick Google search of his book [4] has listed as its first and second sources the LDS website, and a commentary of Dr. Scott Hahn's view on the subject of Babylon in the Apocalypse. A review of his book from a Christian radio network comes up third, and then you have a bunch of other non-related links before the Amazon page comes up at the bottom. Compare this to the certainly notable The Late Great Planet Earth [5]. The Google Scholar search that turns up the most results for him shows 4-5 articles most of them being cited one or two times, with the most being five citations in scholarly work [6]. I would hardly call his work a substantial development in eschatology, where a scholar search would turns up articles with 100-300+ citations [7]. Regardless of what standard we use, it seems to me that his work has not led to substantial development in his field, either in devotional or academic eschatology, and thus he fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2013 (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.