Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Douglass

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. No reliable sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Douglass[edit]

Delete as an academic who does not seem more notable than average under the criteria of WP:PROF, and I have not found any independent reliable sources about him. Flex (talk/contribs) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find anything either on Google; 1. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't actually see any claim of notability in this article, unless it's the plug for his soon-to-be-published book... Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam for his to-be-published book. --Crusio (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable church planner. The academic side is secondary. DGG (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: His work as a church planter (n.b., not planner) is fine and good, but how does it make him notable? What reliable sources reported on that work? There is no indication here, and based on my searches and knowledge of pastors and academics in his and his seminary's denomination, I suspect it will be difficult to find any. I have nothing against the man. I just don't think he has met either WP:N or WP:PROF. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG. Given Douglass' record of achievements, which is very strong, there are very likely to be multiple sufficient sources that would attest to his notability, but such sources, being ecclesiastic, tend to be filed only in theological libraries, circulated only among theologians, and are unlikely to be online or uncoverable by a Google search. We have not heard from any theologians in this AfD; there seems to be a dearth of highly qualified academic theologians participating in Wikipedia these days. - Neparis (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On what basis do you rate his record "very strong"? This is pure and simple your judgment call, not verifiable information on his notability. Just because reliable sources may exist (about which I have my doubts, in this case) does not answer the charge of notability. If he is indeed so obscure as to have kept out of all academic and widely published sources, then perhaps he's not notable enough for the Wikipedia (yet). And, hey, I'm as much a qualified theologian as Essjay -- which is to say, how would you know if you had one? It's really up to any researcher, pedigreed or not, to prove the case. --Flex (talk/contribs) 05:53, 7 January 2008 (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.