Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Stokes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- David R. Stokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination. Re-prod after contested prod. Concern (first time) was: "Very poorly sourced article created almost entirely by Expewikiwriter (since banned for apparent propotional editing) and an SPA." Concern (2nd time) was: "One of the Expewikiwriter paid group account artcles. I'm not entirely convinced the sources justify the claims or give evidence of sufficient notability." Valfontis (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Though I think I'm one of the PRODders. 86.** IP (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You think? I think you need to learn about page histories. Valfontis (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, can't be arsed. =P 86.** IP (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Good luck with that then. Valfontis (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, can't be arsed. =P 86.** IP (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You think? I think you need to learn about page histories. Valfontis (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find sufficient sources to show that WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR is met. His book The Shooting Salvationist might meet WP:NBOOK - [1] [2] but that doesn't mean the author is also notable. SmartSE (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the source of the article has clouded the issue. Not only is Stokes the author of a notable book, but he is probably notable also as a pastor - the leader of a megachurch whose sermons have been printed[dead link] in the Washington Times. Stokes' writing has also received coverage in Australia. StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a link to the original WT article. Whilst it does suggest some notability, that in itself isn't enough to satisfy BIO/GNG/AUTHOR etc. Likewise the Aus article only mentions him in passing, which again isn't sufficient for an article here. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I PROD'd the article with the concern Very poorly sourced article created almost entirely by Expewikiwriter (since banned for apparent promotional editing) and an SPA. The PROD was removed by an IP. I still find the article lacking in independent references. There are many, many passing mentions, but there is no in depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There seems to be enough news coverage to meet WP:N. -- 203.171.197.33 (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)— 203.171.197.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With the concern that people seem to often forget meeting the requirements of WP:N , also require verifiability WP:NRVE(Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- I think you don't understand what "I PROD'd" means. Because Stuartyeates applied the first PROD (proposed deletion), and 86.**IP applied the second one. Am I missing something? Valfontis (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm just learning the way things work around here man, I apologize for using a procedural term I did not understand at the time as a verb.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I could not find any in-depth coverage. There are lots of passing references, to be sure, but I couldn't find anything which we could base an article of any length on. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:14, 16 April 2012 (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.