Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Nathaniel Henry Peters
Source: 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 keep.
]George Nathaniel Henry Peters
Does not appear to be notable. Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
- In that case, you should have no problem supplying information about him indicating his nobility as indicated in reliable third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the first 30 Google results about Peters, none refer to what could be considered a reliable source, and most don't say anything specific about the person at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of a book doesn't automatically make it or its author notable. Please read WP:Notability (people) and WP:Notability (books) for the relevant criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Only apparently claim to notability is a book in the late 19th century. An ISDN book might put me down to weak delete on this. I couldn't find any other claims to notability after a quick search. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete or Cleanup With the ISDN, i'm more ambivalent, but if this can't be expanded somewhat, notability is still borderline despite the ]
- His books are sold in many locations.
- http://www.christianbook.com/the-theocratic-kingdom-3-vols/george-peters/9780825435409/pd/35404
- http://www.amazon.com/Theocratic-Kingdom-3-Set/dp/0825435404
- ISBN: 0825435404
- ISBN-13: 9780825435409
- BradSp (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guideline for books cited above states: "A book's listing at online bookstores such as Barnes & Noble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications." Please read the criteria for notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following should satisfy the notability minimum threshold and notability requirement. The article needs to be expanded but certainly not deleted.
- According to the Wikipedia minimum threshold for notability the following has been verified and satisfied.
- 1. Has an ISBN - Verified
- 2. Catalogued in the Library of Congress - Verified
- The following should satisfy Wikipedia proof of Notability. Peters is frequently quoted in other books. Below are several extracts showing his notability to a religious movement. The information was taken from academic peer reviewed Doctoral Thesis written by H. LaVern Schafer.
- Peters Theocratic Kingdom was a “strong defense” against postmillennialism.
- The theological emphasis of the last century shifted during the last part of the century. As early as 1842 premillennialism was pitted against postmillennialism. John Duffield, a Presbyterian pastor, wrote in that year, Dissertations on the Prophecies Relative to the Second Coming of Christ. This work was a strong defense of premillennialism against postmillennialism
- In this case he was a notable among the premillenarians of his time.
- “Peters' name is found listed on the roster of speakers addressing the International Prophetic Conference in 1886 at Chicago. Such well-known premillennial men as A. T. Pierson, Henry M. Parsons, W. G. Moorehead, Nathaniel West, A. J. Frost, W. E. Blackstone, George C. Needham, A. J. Gordon, and W. J. Erdman were also listed. These men include the most prominent premillenarians of the last century. The very inclusion of Peters with them would indicate acceptance on their part and the fact that he and his work were generally known.”
- “Peters was well-known in the millenarian circles of his day.”
- In the 1880s when mass produced religious tracts and Religious Conferences were the norm in order to sway laymen Peters released the highly academic Theocratic Kingdom.
- It was through religious periodicals, Bible institutes, and Bible conferences that this emphasis was concentrated. The reason was that by 1895 many of the theological chairs of the major seminaries had fallen to the liberals. The plan, therefore, was not to present the case for premillennialism to the scholar, but rather to the layman. This emphasis is seen in a statement of the reasons for calling the Prophetic Conference of 1886 in Chicago.
- Poor Peters can not catch a break - hope he doesnt get deleted. :) I am contacting Peters University and Alumni and hopefully the Lutheran project can come out for him.
- BradSp (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Peters Theocratic Kingdom was a “strong defense” against postmillennialism.
- The main consideration here is the notability criteria for articles about people, which doesn't appear to have been met. The criteria you've indicated above are related to books, but may be relevant to a consideration of whether Theocratic Kingdom warrants an article. However, of those criteria you've listed, the guideline states that "these are exclusionary criteria rather than inclusionary; meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable, whereas a book which does not meet them, most likely is not." Those are not the criteria for the "minimum threshold for notability", but are a benchmark for excluding articles even if the other criteria are met.
- Of the list of other people you've listed as notable there are only Wikipedia articles for Pierson and Gordon (the article Nathaniel West is about a different person). Inclusion of Peters' name among other people who aren't all considered notable by Wikipedia standards doesn't make him notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unclear which parts of your text above are quoting H. LaVern Schafer and which are your own interpolations. More importantly, it doesn't actually say anything specific about Peters.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The small text is from the thesis. You may want to read the thesis if you do not understand Jeffro. I did my best to explain certain passages which show Peters and his books influence over the respective 19th century religious movement. BradSp (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of your 'clarification', my previous comments stand. The only reference to Peters in what you quoted were in a list of people, the notability of some of whom is also not well established.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeffro, I think you may not understand what you are reading in the above passages. Every passage provided above is about Peters and part of the thesis.
- 76.19.146.192 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It still does not seem to establish his notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: According to the Dictionary of Premillennial Theology [1], this scholar is regarded as "... one of the most mysterious and fascinating ]
- It seems that Peters is seldom mentioned without reference to Theocratic Kingdom. As stated above, it may be suitable to have an article about that particular book if it meets the relevant criteria. Alternatively, if there is anything else notable about Peters, then this article could be kept and Theocratic Kingdom could be a subsection.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears, Peters has clearly made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. In various ways Peters was part of the unfolding millennial movement of the 19th century.
- 1. It has been well established that Peter’s three books are the most extensive scholarly study on the subject of millennialism.
- 2. In the 19th century sources have stated that Peters was an answer to previous religious thought. Sources have repeatedly provided scholarly challenges to his work for about 130 years now and he has remained relevant in the scholarly study of millennialism.
- At this point I see no reason why we should not redirect The Theocratic Kingdom to Peters. If we are done establishing notability I suggest we further develop the existing Peters article respective of his Biographical information and written analysis of the persons methods, career and life.
- 1. His scholarly work contains 10,000 pages of material and various articles synthesizing his exhaustive work.
- 2. He is the author of other books "Antichrist: A Systematic Study of Satan's Counterfeit Christ " By: Arthur W Pink, George Nathaniel Henry Peters
- 3. Peters published material which was in answer to pre-millennial criticism of the time. It was been established that he was part of an American religious movement and provided thought on the matter in various forms and activities.
- 4 Peters was published in various laymen religious journals. Trust me - These articles are required reading for anyone attempting to crack The Theocratic Kingdom. :)
- BradSp (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly meets V, arguments for N seem to be appropriate. Multiple Google Books hits, mirrored in Google Scholar, and that's just restricted to the full syntax of his name. If expanded, this could probably be an interesting article. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep BradSp (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. Ghits are not helpful for a man who died 100 years ago. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - From what I've gathered from this discussion, Peters wrote a book, was described as "mysterious and fascinating" by another book, and then was mentioned in somebody's doctoral thesis. Seriously? Sure it meets WP:V, but there is no way this article meets notability requirements. As suggested above, an article on the book might be more suitable, but good ol' George isn't ready for his own. If somebody could find evidence that Peters did something other than just write a book on premillennialism, maybe he would get an article. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 03:06, 20 June 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.