Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary DeMar

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 keep. Sandstein 09:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary DeMar

Gary DeMar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Non-notable 10 minute podcasts and a string of non-notable books/articles don't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I don't see any coverage of him, so the only item to consider is
  WP:NAUTHOR. No indication of any awards or such. The best I have for him is Google Scholar, one of his books gets 68 citations, but I don't think that's enough to pass NAUATHOR, and he is not an academic anyway to contend for NPROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. One of the key figures in
  The University of North Carolina Press, 2015) and Julie Ingersoll, Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction (Oxford University Press, 2015). StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - the person is notable as a supporter for Preterism, although considered controversial, providing a significant minority view. JohnThorne (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You may consider him important, but that's opinion. Where is the significant third party coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passes
  WP:NAUTHOR criteria 1 (only one criteria needed) as prominent in his field, in this case Preterism imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Which criteria does it allegedly pass? You've used the same reason for multiple AFD's, but never showed how. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- That is a long list of publications. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merely publishing something doesn't establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet
  WP:NBOOK - notability not established - Epinoia (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. His work was the subject of a highly critical
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]