Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Barnes (minister) (2nd nomination)

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Barnes (minister)

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

as per my previous nomination. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Being quoted in the media on a few occasions does not make you notable. The keep arguments last time were weak and did not address notability in mainstream not Christian press. In addition, he is a very minor figure in the church, he is a pastor of a small suburban church. LibStar (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He preaches, he writes about religion and he debates about his religion. That sums up virtually every preacher I know! --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He does seem to have written many more books than the average preacher: the article lists 11. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that does not mean he automatically passes WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous AfD. Adding the keyword "Presbyterian" to the search (and removing the word in parentheses) finds several mentions of Peter Barnes on smh.com.au and theage.com.au (those are the biggest Sydney and Melbourne newspapers). There have been other mentions that aren't online, given Barnes' public statements on several issues of community interest, and reviews of his books in not only Australian, but also American and English media. Satisfies
WP:N. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.74.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Are you sure this is a sufficiently high standard for notability? Almost any priest will find themselves mentioned in their local town or city newspapers. They are by definition local public figures. I do not think Wikipedia should turn into a catalogue of every local preacher, hence we require a higher standard than mere mentions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me put it this way: the SMH and the Age are the Australian equivalents of the NY Times and the Washington Post. And, given that Melbourne (where the Age is published) is 900 km by road from Sydney (where Barnes lives) calling the Age a "local newspaper" is hardly appropriate. In fact, Barnes gets national-level coverage. -- 202.124.75.234 (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the age and SMH have the same owner and often publish identical content. Do you have any connection to Peter Barnes? LibStar (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. -- 202.124.74.36 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

please answer the question, i ask to assist knowing where you are coming from, a good faith question since I don't know if you have a connection to mr barnes. Regards LibStar (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the 202.124.75.234 and 202.124.74.36 above. I am not Peter Barnes, and have no connection to him. I had thought that was clear from what I said. Can we get back to discussing the article now please? -- 202.124.74.196 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, again. This is what I wrote last time, "After searching gnews and
general notability guideline. He only has passing mentions in independent RSs (e.g. "Presbyterian minister, Peter Barnes commented that abortion is murder"), and none of the articles are primarily about Barnes." and I still agree with that view. That said, The Age and the SMH should not be dismissed as local newspapers; the problem with the mentions that he gets in those papers is that they are only mentions – none that I could find cover him in significant detail. Jenks24 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- To my mind the list of publications (with major evangelical publishers - Banner of Truth and Evangelical Press) is sufficient to justify that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a criterion for WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since these books reflect theological scholarship but are widely sold in the evangelical community, they satisfy

WP:PROF #7: "Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study." -- 202.124.74.36 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.74.36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply

]

Delete per Jenks24. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My suggestion that The Age was a "local paper" was clearly innapropriate. On the other hand I still stand by my previous statement that he seems much like any other priest. I'd be willing to change my mind if we could show articles about him rather than articles about other subjects on which he may have provided brief comments. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the reliable source mentions are almost all in the context of his being a caning advocate (which isn't very notable IMHO), and they are very brief mentions that probably don't satisfy "significant" coverage. No evidence of widespread influence as an academic. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true: there's also mentions in news stories on abortion, church history, hymns, etc. As AJ Balmforth points out, he's one of the key Protestant "go to" academics for media outlets seeking an opinion. -- 202.124.74.196 (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but they're still only one-line mentions. A succession of sources giving him trivial coverage do not add up to significant coverage.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More notable than just some preacher. Is often the go to Christian academic for several media outlets including radio station 2CH and several papers. --AJ Balmforth (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — AJ Balmforth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment the liberal use of SPA tags here isn't appropriate: can the closing admin please check the "contribs" links (bearing in mind that all the IP contributions to this discussion are mine). -- 202.124.74.196 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.74.196 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The ad hominem tagging is an admission that the "keep" arguments can't be countered; and if you're going to pretend that all the 202.124 !votes are different people, then you have to count them all as independent "keep" !votes. -- 202.124.74.151 (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.74.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't know how you can claim the SPA tags are unjustified. The editors who got tagged have indeed made "few or no edits outside this topic". 120.124 has about three dozen edits, about a quarter of them relating to Barnes and most of the remainder to the Presbyterian Church and related topics. Balmforth has three edits.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dynamic IP 202.124.*.* has over 80 edits, in total, as you can see by clicking "contribs." -- 202.124.74.84 (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.74.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I clicked on every tagged 202.124 contrib link in this discussion, there were three-dozen-odd edits. You want me to be able to easily see your editing history, get an account.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter how reliable the sources, the depth of coverage needs to be more substantial to satisfy BIO. And I don't see anything sourced to meet AUTHOR. Novaseminary (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is

WP:PROF with, as I have argued above, #7 being met. -- 202.124.74.118 (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see anything he has written that is ”widely popular” for ”general audiences”, nor is there anything to note he is ”widely regarded inside academia”. He is not even close to PROF, I'm afraid. Novaseminary (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my reasoning last time around. Just another reactionary dial-a-quote machine. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 23 March 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.