Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Nathaniel Henry Peters (3rd nomination)

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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes standing. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Nathaniel Henry Peters[edit]

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

The author is non-notable per WP:AUTHOR. He has not created any major significant works, nor has he created entirely new theories. This article has been nominated for deletion twice before, and the last time ended in no consensus. I'd like to actually reach a decision this time. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 04:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Keep - Appears to be a notable individual. His papers are preserved, here is a link for the Finding Aid in pdf form. In addition, his 1884 book, The theocratic kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, as covenanted in the Old Testament and presented in the New Testament was reprinted in 1972 and again in 1988, which indicates more than passing importance. Peters was a Lutheran minister who appears to have been a pioneer of modern fundamentalism, so historical importance there. You put it all together and it's more than enough reason to keep a little stub hanging around... I did take the liberty of BOLDLY killing two flags pinned to the top... Obviously, it's a stub so it "needs to be expanded" "by an expert in the field" without having to drop three column inches of warning flags on top of a one line entry... Carrite (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has not created entirely new theories? That's funny, considering he's been dead for a hundred years. That said, a hundred years after death, he remains one of the most highly notable religious eschatologists known throughout history. Although, the article should probably be renamed George N. H. Peters, as this was the name he wrote under, and most people with interest wouldn't know to look under his full name. The research and works he completed are classics in the study of premillennialism. Per WP:AUTHOR, the subject of this article meets the first three criteria for inclusion.

Peters is an important figure in the eschatological study of premillennialism. He was not only cited during his lifetime, but continues to be cited over a hundred years after his death.
A hundred years after his death, his works continue to be published. He is known for his extensive research and presentation of the theological theory of premillennialism.
He created a significant and well-known body of work that has been presented in multiple independent periodical articles and reviews for well over a hundred years.
While his work is represented in a permanent collection by the Dallas Theological Seminary Archives, I don't know if this meets the fourth criteria, since the criteria states representation in galleries or museums. As well, there are numerous resources available that establish his notability. These are a few. [1][2][3] Cindamuse (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on the article name change, that needs to be done as soon as this AfD closes. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This may well be a speedy keep situation, here are some sources listed in the finding aid for his papers:

“Rev. George N. H. Peters: Biography.” The Lutheran Observer. October 22, 1909: 1348-1349.

Smith, Wilbur M. “Preface.” In The Theocratic Kingdom, George N. H. Peters, unnumbered pages.Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1957

Stoll, John H. “George N. H. Peters – a biography.” In The Theocratic Kingdom, George N. H. Peters, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1972.

I've done some rudimentary setting up of the page, the pdf of the finding aid has a nice little bio that can be harvested if anyone has half an hour and needs something to do... Carrite (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment - This stub already passed AfD muster on June 12, 2010 with a KEEP recommendation, then was run up the flagpole again in August with a No Consensus result. It should have been Speedy Kept on the basis of repeated I DON'T LIKE IT challenges wasting our fucking time... Carrite (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Couldn't have said it better myself. Cindamuse (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Actually someone just visited my talk page to tell me that I could have. I dunno, honest people may differ. Let's just say the phrase "wasting our fucking time" was carefully chosen to emphasize my feelings on what seems to be the abuse of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and further to implicitly assert that I'm not a fundamentalist christian with an axe to grind here. The bottom line is this : when a decision is rendered at AfD, it may be appealed to Wikipedia:Deletion review. What should not happen is carting the article again and again to AfD, hoping to get a "better" result. That is disruptive behavior. This article passed AfD with a KEEP recommendation way back in mid-June 2010. That's a long, long time ago, I know, but I'm gonna stick my neck way, way out there and say that the notability of a dude that was born 180 years ago hasn't changed a whole hell of a lot in the last three months. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a preacher's kid, but fully able to separate my personal religious bent from what is and is not appropriate on Wikipedia. And when a spade is a spade... it's just a spade. Maybe we need a new guideline for AfDs. WP:WOFT. Cindamuse (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another comment - Here's pretty much the definitive defense, reprinted from the June 2010 challenge, which ended with a KEEP result...

Deletion?! - This Wittenburg University Lutheran produced the most exhaustive single work of pre-millennial thought EVER published. It is still being published after over a hundred years.

The three books written by Peters are considered to be the most in depth history on the subject. An entire lifetime was spent creating the 10,000 pages of notes and of course his 3 volumes original published by Funk & Wagnalls.

Short History of the man: http://www.theocratickingdom.com/MrPeters/History.html

Google info on the man: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Nathaniel+Henry+Peters&start=10&sa=N

Google info about his books: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=The+Theocratic+Kingdom&aq=f&aqi=g2&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

BradSp (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to salt AfD challenges? Carrite (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Third nomination since June 2010 ... Is this some kind of joking? Why do you want to delete this article so desperately? It was clearly proved in the previous noms that the information is verifiable and could be useful for our readers. I can't see any benefit in deleting such kind of material. I'd like to know the real reason of this nomination. There's so much work to do here. This is just one of the countless examples of wasting of time here on Wikipedia. All that is masked as a discussion. Ridiculous. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if those who are quick to say how important this individual is when the article is challenged, would actually do something—anything—to actually improve the article itself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not cleanup. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I was simply making a comment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, sorry. This is a forum for discussing potential and encyclopedic possibilities of one particular topic. On Wikipedia, there are millions of articles needing attention and improvement. It would be nice to see more editors improving the articles. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to put an end to these multiple challenge shenanigans, the answer is to improve this article from 2 lines to C-level, I do agree with that. And it most certainly can be done. The table is pretty well set now. I'll toss up a RESCUE flag and see if someone gets fired up to spend an hour. But three challenges in four months, when the first came in with a KEEP recommendation, is absolutely unacceptable, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I apologize to everybody if I "wasted your time" and whatnot by nominating this article for the third time. If anybody maybe even attempts to look deeper into the reason I nominated the article, maybe your opinions would not be as harsh. This article was nominated twice before for deletion. During the first nomination, though the discussion was closed as Keep, only three editors out of the five who participated in the discussion actually announced their opinion to keep the article, the creator of the article being included in that number. And from what I gathered from the discussion as a whole, the argument for notability was not very convincing (at least to me), especially since the article's creator was the only one who made any attempt to show that this person was notable. When the article was nominated a second time, it was closed as no consensus since yet again nobody could seem to agree on whether the author was notable or not. Heck, even this nomination has only had five editors comment on it, including myself. So if you really feel I was "wasting our fucking time" and that "this is just one of the countless examples of wasting of time here on Wikipedia", as a few editors put it, then I think you guys really have no idea what the point of AfD discussions are, and also you should really check your attitudes, especially since I obviously do not have a whole lot of experience with the notability of authors (I spend my time editing fiction articles, what can I say?). Furthermore, exactly how much thought and time did you really put into this nomination that it was a complete waste of your time? Anyway, fortunately for good ol' George, people have finally found some evidence of notability in this nomination, and I can successfully say I am convinced enough to withdraw my nomination for the article's deletion. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:24, 16 September 2010 (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.