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. I've read through the article several times (including "past versions, reversions, new versions...), I've read the entire talkpage of the article, and I've read through and weighed the discussion here at AFD several times. It would be very easy for me to simply say "no consensus", but I would be doing so simply to avoid "hurt feelings". I'm obliged to say keep based on the case presented. The improvements to the article are valid, the sources are "improving", indicating a likelihood that they will continue to improve. Mr. Wilson's credentials, (Harvard), his academic position (academic dean of a prominent (within its field) seminary), his writing of a widely (again, within his field) book, the availability of reviews for said book, all add up to notability of subject. I agree in part with those advocating deletion that this biography is skewed towards being too coatrack-y, however, and want to urge all editors to not let the focus of the article be simply the book he wrote. The article definitely needs more citations specifically that talk (independently and reliably) about Mr. Wilson instead of "Mr. Wilson wrote a notable book". If those prove unattainable in the in the next few weeks/months, then this article is inappropriately named and a rename discussion should occur. (to the book title). Ideally, especially for WP:BLP biographies, we should have background, comeuppance, birth/(death) dates, etc that are sourced. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilson (theologian)[edit]

Andrew Wilson (theologian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable. Only mentioned in primary sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as non-notable -- no third party coverage, no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of apparently notable sources (and a few stray hits) googling for "andrew wilson" and unification. Please take the time to do at least that much research before nominating an undersourced article: google first, nom second. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found two relevant cites from ProQuest, searching on "Andrew Wilson" and "unification"--a third did not appear relevant.

Andrew Wilson. The World & I. Washington: Jan 1999. Vol. 14, Iss. 1; pg. 266. A review of Boorstin's "The Seekers". Author tag "Andrew Wilson is associate professor of biblical studies at the Unification Theological Seminary His publications include True Family Values (1996) and World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts (1991). He has collaborated on textbooks in the field of moral education and also spent several years researching and planning an encyclopedia oriented around values."

Gülen's Paradox: Combining Commitment and Tolerance. Lester R Kurtz. The Muslim World. Hartford: Jul 2005. Vol. 95, Iss. 3; pg. 373, 12 pgs. Wilson is cited in end note: "See, e.g., the remarkable compendium edited by Andrew Wilson and posted on the internet at http://www.unification.net/ws/themel44.htm (available 30 August 2003)." as reference for "Virtually every religious tradition, for example, has some version of a "love your enemy" ethic" Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, apparently third party sources for "World Scripture" and "Andrew Wilson" include: [1], [2] (includes quotes from apparently non-Unification folks), [3] (one of six texts on the topic profiled), [4], [5], [6] (three examples--there are many more--of collegiate libraries linking to the online version as a reference).

• Comment: in actual fact, a Google search shows up almost exclusively primary and/or UC-affiliated sources. No indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you'd already gone through and done the searching I re-did, it would have been considerate for you to have explicitly said that--e.g. "first 20 google hits look like primary sources." That would have saved me some time. Jclemens (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't previously as (i) I didn't nominate this AfD & (ii) I don't find (vanilla) Google to be particularly useful because of the large number of unreliable sources it turns up (G. Scholar/Books tends to be more useful in that respect, but does tend to clog up with a large number of non-"significant coverage" bare mentions). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You looked at Google Scholar, did you? Did you notice that World Scripture seems to be cited 18 times? I just did. Funny how that got overlooked in the rush to declare that no one had ever heard of Andrew Wilson, Ph.D. from Harvard. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wilson's notability derives primarily from his having edited World Scripture, a 5-year project which I have seen praised a number of times in third-party publications as a major work in the field of comparative religion. This claim is made in the article, but is unsourced. This AfD is premature - a cite tag should have been put on that claim instead. So keep, but find third-party sources. A secondary claim of notability might not be enough by itself, that Wilson (a Harvard Ph.D. who is Academic Dean of the church's main seminary in the world) is probably the most accomplished Western theologian in the Unification Church, including being one of two translators of the church's main scripture. -Exucmember (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RS citations for this? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Andrew Wilson" + unification turns up zero hits on google news, whereas "Andrew Wilson" turns up a total of 10 pages of hits: including an associate professor of physics at the University of Otago and an archaeological scientist at the University of Bradford, but no professors of theology. I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF or WP:BIO, but I'd be happy to change my opinion if WP:RS sources are provided which demonstrate notability to either of these standards. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a critic of the Unification Church, but I have to take issue with Pete Hurd's comment. Google News?!? Is that how we evaluate the notability of an academic?!? There are three main claims to notability. [1] Editor of major work in comparative religion, World Scripture - third-party sources need to be found for its importance, which is more difficult as it was published in the pre-internet era (patience is appropriate here, not rushing to AfD). [2] He is the Academic Dean of a fully accredited graduate school. [3] He is probably the most accomplished Western theologian in the Unification Church, including being one of two translators of the church's main scripture. (This third claim is a harder one to evaluate. On the first point, WP:PROF says "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable....The person has published a significant and well-known academic work." -Exucmember (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You already made (1) above (and I asked for a WP:RS on it). (2) would appear to be an administrative position and non-notable. (3), even were it to be verified via a WP:RS is of questionable value -- as chief theologian of a church whose theological pronouncements many (in both the Christian and the secular communities) would often consider to be out-and-out bizarre. WP:FRINGE would appear to apply, and some independent verification that Unification theology is notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not at all comfortable with your (3)--at first glance, it looks to be taking a stand on the value of Unification theology. Can you please clarify that point? Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it would be stretching credibility to suggest that most Christians and secularists (as well as most Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians and presidential historians) would consider claims such as this (cited in Sang Hun Lee) of beyond-the-grave endorsements from Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius and 36 presidents of the US to be, to say the least, well outside the ordinary. I would therefore like to see some independent evidence that Unification theology is considered to be a serious field of academic study, and not merely an apologetic overlay on the pronouncements of Moon and other senior UC members. On a more general note, I would suggest that WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria applies, and that none of these criteria have, as yet, been met. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside from the inherent challenge of finding RS for minority viewpoints and religions, I don't think Unification's religious prestige or lack thereof should be a consideration on whether this article should be deleted or not. WP:RS and WP:N already cover it sufficiently, in other words. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For any Academic their notability due to the prominence in their specialist field necessarily relies on the prominence of that field. I would note that the Unification theology article cites no third party sources. I therefore would suggest that the prominence (and even the bare notability) of that field has not been established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm finding your arguments less and less convincing; each reply makes it more difficult for me to WP:AGF, both in terms of your disrespect for a minority religion, but especially in light of the dozen or more college libraries which link to the online version of World Scripture. Please demonstrate good faith by amending your clearly erroneous initial statement in light of the evidence brought forth, at essentially trivial effort, by myself and other editors. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• <unident>Then lets leave the Unification aspect out of this altogether. Is Andrew Wilson considered "by independent sources" to be an expert in theology? Is he considered to be an "important figure" in theology by "independent notable" theologians (if so, then by whom)? Is World Scripture considered to be "significant and well-known" (again, if so, then by whom)? These are the questions that WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria asks. As to universities linking to it, (i) this is a very vague claim -- in what manner do they link to it? (ii) please provide verifiable information substantiating this & (iii) please establish relevance to WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still waiting for you to refactor, retract, or otherwise amend (which can be as simple as "the information since added to the article renders this statement now incorrect") your initial false statements. After all, shouldn't the presentation of accurate information in an AfD take precedence over such minor points? Still, both the article and this page have the information needed for you to answer the university linking question. If you'd like more, Google this string ("andrew wilson" "world scripture" site:*.edu) and peruse the results, adding them to the page as you see fit. As to the WP:ACADEMIC criteria "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]." citations by a dozen university websites (many of them libraries), including UPenn, GMU, Temple, and Emory would seem to establish that pretty firmly. If you'd be so kind as to change your vote, I'll count that as self-repudiation of your initial incorrect comments. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll refactor it if somebody demonstrates it to be inaccurate. I am not repudiating the underlying theme of my previous thread of argument: that at some point "minority religion" becomes sufficiently small and sufficiently idiosyncratic that its study is no longer a significant field in theology (just as would apply to any other sub-sub-sub-field in academia), and that which side of this boundary UC sits on has not been established. My reframing of the question to theology generally was to avoid this (apparently contentious) issue, not a repudiation of it. Google hits turned up references that suggest that World Scripture is merely a collection of scriptural passages, organised thematically -- not that it is a major piece of original scholarship. As to my vote, let me clarify it: Delete: as there still has not been presented even a single WP:RS that attests to the topic's notability (per WP:NOTE, WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I'll demonstrate how your statement is inaccurate: "no third party coverage, no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him" Note that since the second clause is qualified, twice, and the first statement is not, hence absolute.

1. "No third party coverage"--The article now has third party (i.e., non-UC) coverage.
2. "no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him" Now there is.

If you still don't see the need to refactor that statement as demonstrably incorrect in light of the current state of ther article, then I really have nothing further to say in response to such intransigence. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the state that the article was in when I made my original comment. It could accurately be described as containing "no third party coverage, no indication in the article that anybody (even within the Unification Church) has even heard of him". Yes, third party sources have been provided since, but they are very poor quality as (i) they, or the statements attributed to them, score the trifecta of violating WP:NPOV (opinion stated as fact), WP:NOR (synthesis) and WP:V (referencing uncited quotes), and (ii) do not give the "significant coverage" required by WP:NOTE (nor meet the equivalent standards of WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC). There is thus no basis for either a retraction or a change of vote. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but you didn't say there was no third party coverage referenced in the article. By excluding the qualifier from that statement, and including it for the latter clause, you said that no third party coverage existed at all. You're now reinterpreting your statement to present it that that assertion was never made, but you're clearly unwilling to apply the same standards of exactness you apply to the article to your own statements. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The case of Dr. Wilson is pure ignorance or bias. World Scripture has sold over 25,000 copies and has dozens of very high reviews from people not related at all to UC. I would say that objectively he rates an entry more than a lot of people in the Wikipedia. If he doesn't merit an article of his own, at least merge the information about him into Unification Theological Seminary. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: last I checked WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria did not contain a sales-based criterion. Thus this figure, even if it were verifiable to a reliable source (which Ed fails to provide), is irrelevant. As to the claim that it has "has dozens of very high reviews from people not related at all to UC", where is the WP:RS? This is not a "case of ... pure ignorance or bias" it is case of repeated bare assertion, rather than making any attempt whatsoever to meet WP:PROVEIT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteComment I have run the Google search referred to above by Jclemens. This gives 13 hits. I have looked at all of them. Almost all (3 exceptions) are simple lists of "online web resources". The other three are texts citing this work (one in Russian). Google Scholar gives also about 13 hits and indicates that this work has been cited about 20 times. Many grad students get more cites... Hrafn is right, this does not meet WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. --Crusio (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You meant comment, right? You already !Voted delete. While you're commenting, though, could you look at the Google Scholar ones I posted above, too? Jclemens (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure which ones you mean. The 18 citations that you refer to above? My former grad student (defended his PhD less than 4 years ago) has almost 150.... 18 is simply not very impressive, to say the least. --Crusio (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So what is the magic number? Is it the same from field to field? Note that he's not "just" an academic--he's a seminary professor, which means that he's likely been more involved in training Unification Church clergy than in publishing original research. I do know he's more cited than the vast majority of clergy are. Jclemens (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are absolutely right that citation rates vary a lot between different fields. In the life sciences, I don't start getting impressed below 1000. However, I cannot imagine that 18 citations would be above the mean in any field, theology or other. Of course most clergy are not cited because they do not simulteously work as academics. The correct comparison is with other seminary professors. As for "just" an academic: almost all academics teach and train, for instance, new scientists. Nothing really special about that. --Crusio (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So, given the pull quotes, Google scholar citations, etc., please take a look at the current state of the article and let me know 1) is there anything else that you see that should be added to change your vote under WP:ACADEMIC, or 2) is there another established notability standard that you believe he meets, given the information in the article now? Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but given all the evidence (of lack of evidence, actually) presented so far, I think it has been shown clearly that this article does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hrafn just tagged three trivial corrections for cleanup. I addressed each one, but the tagging of issues that could have been easily fixed by any editor raises additional questions of good faith on this editor's part. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Five more, even more trivial, tags have been addressed. Only one required a change. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After assessing Jclemens claims, I have to agree, there are notable sources (as he points out). It's a good start and Jclemens is demonstrating a good faith attempt to remedy the objections. Therefore, I strongly urge that this be kept. I would only say that a photo would be nice. Note that WP:ACADEMIC is merely a guideline and does not have the community's consensus to be a policy. As such there is plenty of room for leeway. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have personally seen praise in print for World Scripture from well-known people in the comparative religion world, but that was effectively before the web, so those comments are not on the web. It will take some time to find such additional sources commenting on Wilson's major work. Comparative religion is a much narrower field even than theology. As has been pointed out by me and others above, there are other factors that contribute to Wilson's notability, which are now covered pretty well in the article, but weren't when this AfD began. All of the reasons given directly after "delete" arguments above (well I guess there are only 3 people making such arguments, including the AfD nominator) have now been addressed in the article. -Exucmember (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to Closing Admin Please take a look at the edit history of the article. Hrafn has been actively removing material which I and Exucmember believe establish notability for Wilson's work, such as the fact the online version of his notable work is linked to by multiple college/university libraries. I intend to pursue dispute resolution processes, but I do not want my failure to edit war over these material removals to impact the resolution of this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that lists of links establish notability just by including this work. --Crusio (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And I appreciate your candor throughout the process, even though we disagree. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further I am now not reverting the article in question until I've had a neutral party appraise whether doing so will violate 3RR. I have been unjustly accused of Coatracking, despite WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack--as the book is Wilson's biggest documented accomplishment, it is allowed to take up disproportionate space in the article. Further, I have been unjustly accused of Gaming the AfD, simply because of my concerted effort to include material to demonstrate that Andrew Wilson meets the criteria of having published a major work in his field--that work being World Religion the alleged coatrack. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As it stands this is a very bad article. WP:COATRACK applies in the extreme - i.e. the article is just an excuse to write about his book. The article contains no biographical material. No birthdate, no other jobs, no history. Unless the article is substantially improved I have to say delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not delete major portions of the text in the middle of an AfD. The reason the section about World Scripture is so large is to demonstrate notability. Quoting Exucmember above "On the first point, WP:PROF says "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable....The person has published a significant and well-known academic work."" The current AfD is the sole reason that portion of the article has grown out of proportion to the rest of the article. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes DJ Clayworth, your removal of this material quite cruelly undercuts Jclemens' attempt to WP:GAME this AfD by loading the article up with spurious, trivial and/or tangential citations, none of which give Wilson (or even World Scriptures) "significant coverage". Shame on you. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't agree that the edits I and exucmember have made improve the article enought to meet WP:HEY, then leave them alone and let the AfD process kill the entire article. By actively removing content, you're demonstrating a lack of faith in the closing admin: If our additions are BS, then the article should be deleted, as the closing admin should not be influenced by inferior additions. Given that you hold the position that the article should be deleted, what do you hope to accomplish by pre-deleting parts of it? Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• An AfD is not carte blanche to load an article up with WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, and spurious citations. New material that does not meet policy can be removed at any time -- and doing so before the sheer number of them you are piling in willy-nilly get mistaken for "significant coverage" (which they are not) would appear to be timely. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying that you fear that the inclusion of the material (which you disagree meets policy) could be seen by a community-selected admin as significant coverage? Is that not, then, the very definition of gaming the AfD? I'd think it also reflected poorly on your WP:AGF of the closing admin. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No. What I am saying is that commenting editors will generally not track down every citation, so will tend to voice an opinion on the number of citations, and thus might be misled by the insertion of a large number of spurious or tangential citations. The closing admins role is to determine what the consensus of the discussion was, not to impose their own opinion on notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Keep, pending further research. Here's a newspaper article about Wilson.John Z (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google News gives an NYT article quoting Wilson in preview, on graduation at top, the third article from the Frederick Maryland News looks like it could be an interview with his parents about the deprogramming.John Z (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those. I've added the Crimson reference, and will look to see if I can get full text for the other articles. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Edits Please see Talk:Andrew Wilson (theologian)#Questionable edits for details. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm among those who've contributed to answering, to a degree I think most people would find very reasonable, all the criticisms made by Hrafn in his extremely aggressive attack on this article (see above and recent edits), and have made several compromises as well. Though I don't favor his editing style, I have to say that the article is vastly better as of writing than it was before the AfD. Then again, the same result could have been accomplished more calmly, but over a longer time frame. -Exucmember (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - being the dean of Unification Theological Seminary comes close to notability, but not quite there --T-rex 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you wouldn't mind reviewing a more complete version that speaks to the notability of Wilson's magnum opus, I think you'll find enough additional notability aplenty. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment by T-rex and at least one other "delete" editor above seem to be ignoring the fact that various reasons for notability can be cumulative. For example, T-rex's comment appears to ignore [1] "leading Unification scholar", [2] editor of the main academic journal of Unificationism, and [3] translator of the main scripture of the Unification Church, in addition to [4] his magnum opus, the significance of which was illegitimately deleted from the article, but has now been restored. -Exucmember (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for his notable book, whic makes him notable. Better sources would still be nice thoughYobmod (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't think that the book is notable. Being included in some link lists and mentioned on some blogs is not really a ringing endorsement by the academic community. I see above that some feel that Wilson might be notable as a "deprogrammation survivor". If that indeed would be the case (and that still is a very big if), then the article should be rewritten to put the emphasis on what makes him notable (i.e. the deprogrammation episode) and renamed from "Andrew Wilson (theologian)" to "Andrew Wilson (deprogrammation survivor)". I think it has been shown over and again that Wilson is not notable as an academic (sorry Exucmember, but your arguments just don't cut it for me). An "Academic Dean" at a major research university or a major seminary might be notable, but from nothing that I see does it look like that the seminary where he works is even average. It is only notable for being the main Unification Church seminary. I still think this article should be deleted, although this AfD seems to be heading to "no consensus" (which I think would be the easy but wrong way out for the closing admin). A compromise might be to make it a redirect to the seminary page, where Wilson could be mentioned as Academic Dean with perhaps a footnote mentioning his deprogrammation experience and his authorship of the oft-mentioned edited book.

I think that this discussion is becoming increasingly sterile, with people digging trenches instead of listening to arguments, so this will be my last contribution to this AfD. --Crusio (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Crusio's characterization "included in some link lists and mentioned on some blogs" grossly misrepresents the article. Of course, if the statements by professors praising the book are repeatedly deleted, someone who doesn't look carefully enough might believe the characterization to be accurate. Also, it not "the easy way out" to acknowledge the obvious lack of consensus here, especially when it's clear that the early objections have been addressed. -Exucmember (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please, show me a single blog that has been added as a source by those advocating keeping the article. That is essentially an unfounded accusation that those of us supporting Wilson's notability have been padding the article with unreliable sources. Hrafn's critique, focused on the triviality of such mentions, has more merit than an attack on the reliability of the sources. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Let me try to make what seems to me to be a perfectly obvious point (but that others don't seem to get) in a different way. In a Venn diagram of overlapping circles, unless there is complete, 100% overlap, each circle contributes to the total shaded area. If a numerical score is given for each of a group of factors (i.e., grade point average, standardized test score, essay score, legacy score, etc.), they can combine to predict some outcome (i.e., performance in college). Unless the factors are 100% correlated, the variance explained by (total mathematical predictive value of) adding each factor is increased. The same is true for Wilson's various sources of notability. You can't take just one source of notability and say it doesn't quite reach the bar, ignoring that the others added in put it well over the bar. -Exucmember (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. After all the editing the article's been through over the course of this AfD, it still comes out looking like an ad for his book. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this comment misunderstands the role of a magnum opus in the life of an academic. Also, the book is still under attack as not sufficiently notable by itself! Other portions of the article can be beefed up. -Exucmember (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edits by DJ Clayworth deleting references to contribution to comparative religion of World Scripture, the notability of which has been challenged [7][8][9][10]. See also questionable edits by Hrafn described by Jclemens at Talk:Andrew Wilson (theologian)#Questionable edits. -Exucmember (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - based on coverage in sources, just about notable. Possibly should be rewritten so it's primarily about the book. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Notability, although extremely marginal, is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2008 (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.