Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Waite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 and redirect to Dean Burgon Society. Clearly a consensus to Delete this and those commenters appear to be accurate on the lack of reliable sources. Redirected to the (notable) organisation that he's head of as a reasonable search term. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D. A. Waite[edit]

D. A. Waite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Biography of a community leader. Does not obviously meet notability criteria. Chief contribution seems to be publishing of two books explaining ideas, but article states that subject was not originator. Also, one book has no WP article and the other one seems not to pass WP notability criteria, and I am nominating it also.

Subject has written many articles and does audiocasting, and various sites link to these, but I am not finding critical review anywhere. His body of work is well-advertised and sometimes reviewed as a product, but I do not see how this is different from any other blogger. Also, everything I am seeing is self-published and distributed; this does not indicate non-notability, but it makes this WP article look a little like self promotion. Blue Rasberry 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defined King James Bible is subject's main work. Blue Rasberry 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article doesn't use any secondary sources for the life of the subject. All I could find in a quick Google check was an article about a libel case about a book written about him, yet the book's authors didn't even realize he was still alive.[1] Perhaps someone will dig up some better sources to justify keeping this article, but until then I'd say it should be deleted.   Will Beback  talk  16:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- There is no proof of notability. RaaGgio (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Google search for "D.A. Waite" produced 81,000 hits. He is the president of the Dean Burgon Society who is frequently mentioned in articles about the King James Only Movement by James White 1, Bart Erhman 2 and would be, besides Peter Ruckman the most influential supporter of the King James Bible in the past 30 years, (as clearly evident in articles on Wikipedia about this topic). 124.184.99.144 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 445 Google hits and 53 hits at Google Scholar for search string <"D A Waite" bible>. Would probably not meet WP:ACADEMIC (especially since several of the hits appear to marginalize Waite's work) but perhaps is some slight evidence of notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are 69,100 hits not 445 see here. Notability is not nulified because people "marginalize" ones work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.99.144 (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the the requirements for academic notability:

  • The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. ~ The very fact that D. A. Waite is mentioned in all article concerning the topic of the King James Only Movement shows this.
  • The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) ~ Waite is the PRESEDENT of the Dean Burgon Society.
  • The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. ~ Obvious throughout the field of King James Onlyism.
  • The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. ~ again - President of the Dean Burgon Society
  • The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. ~ again - President of the Dean Burgon Society
  • The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. ~ Google search for "D.A. Waite" produced 81,000 hits
  • The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. Waite produced the Defined King James Bible
  • The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. ~ The fact that Bart Erhman and James White who are the King James Only Movement's strongest critics, make mention of Waite numerous times in their books, shows the influence he has had in this field of scholarship. 124.184.99.144 (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you click through the Google search results to page 45 or so, you'll probably find (as I just did) that there are actually about 450 non-duplicated hits. I absolutely agree that notability under the general notability guideline is not nullified by criticism; my mention of marginalization was made with respect to its possible relevance to the alternate criteria spelled out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I appreciate your comments with respect to these criteria, but I don't think the case is yet made that the Dean Burgon Society is a major educational institution or organization; and I would question whether the case has been made that the King James Only Movement itself qualifies as a notable "field of scholarship" in the mainstream sense contemplated by the special alternative rules at WP:ACADEMIC, as I understand them. Please note that even if a person does not pass WP:ACADEMIC they may still qualify under WP:GNG, and I remain open to seeing if that case can be made here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As it stands now, this might conceivably be G10'able. The belief that e.g. Codex Sinaiticus is a corruption of the Texus Receptus is a fringe view that could damage a scholar's reputation if untrue. Right now, the assertion is sourced to the subject's own work rather than to independent reliable sources. Is he notable? Probably. Should this article be kept in this form? Probably not. I'm torn as to whether this should be deleted as an undersourced contentious BLP or simply trimmed, sourced, and focused. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is the president of the Dean Burgon Society and author of several books, the article should be improved but not deleted. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment President of the DBS is hardly an indication of notability. The group holds to a minority position, even among evangelicals. This is certainly not a "major academic society" as described in WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is an author and educator on a controversial subject which should be covered in Wiki in at least a fairly Neutral article with references to his works, positions and honors etc.

To remove the article would actually be siding with the opposition party which is already represented in many articles here... Wiki does not subscribe to a policy of Bias but one of Neutrality in such areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maranatha (talk • contribs) 12:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- just a NN pastor, bho takes an extreme position in favour of a rather ancient (though respected) Bible translation and has self-publihsed a gloss on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN pastor who has a self published book. Usually I give benefit of doubt in these cases but I decided to look a bit deeper for sources, there's nothing of substance. Szzuk (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have reviewed the article's sources / external links and have not found reliable sources. The article's sources are mainly books written by the subject or websites related to the subject. Because this biography of a living person lacks sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to verify the article's content, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-published sources only, no evidence of even coming close to passing WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independant coverage beyond one local newspaper article (which seems to be a dead link anyway).Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 25 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D._A._Waite&oldid=1089459242"