Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Oakland
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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Oakland
- Roger Oakland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fixing redlinked discussion in log for User:Mercurywoodrose. Stick around for deletion rationale. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References provided are mostly subject related, others show extremely low level of notability, even within the evangelical community (one incident involving removal from a radio station connected with
Post-evangelical, itself not a highly notable subject. he apparently has an orphanage connected with his ministry, but its not clear if its just a "save the children" sponsorship charity, which i think would be less notable than an actual brick and mortar orphanage. problems exist with it being promotional, etc, but those are irrelevant to this AFD. thanks for fixing my afd, twinkle seemed to have failed, and i find the "normal" process too difficult.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hard to find any evidence of notability. Google News hits for "Roger Oakland" are mostly not about him. Google News Archive hits for "Roger Oakland" together with "understand the times" are mostly calendar announcements (when he is giving a talk somewhere). No in-depth coverage found. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lack of reliable sources. As what Mercury says, the notability of the published references are at best, flimsy. - Mailer Diablo 20:42, 28 March 2011 (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.