 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 November 4. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. NW (Talk) 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doug Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence this person or any of his projects are even remotely notable. Completely lacks citations to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looked for reliable sources to establish notability. Could not establish he is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave This one isn't even debatable. Try Googling the guy. He has written more than 50 published books and worked for nearly 20 years as Rick Warren's associate at Saddleback Church, arguably the most famous church in the world. Those alone should meet Wiki criteria, let alone the fact that he is a nationally-recognized speaker. Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he isn't notable. In his field, he is probably the most famous youth ministry expert in the world. For instance, I have never heard of any of the leading experts on quantum mechanics because I don't know anything about that field - that doesn't mean they aren't notable. I've added several sources and the guy has a profile on Amazon.com. Had the user above taken 2 minutes to Google the guy, we wouldn't even be wasting our time on this. Notability is clearly established. I move to have this frivolous and baseless appeal dropped immediately. Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seems to fail the general notability guideline. Both the sources cited in the article and the ghits I found are either websites he is affiliated with or non-RS blogs commenting on his departure from Saddleback. Some of his books are published by religious publishing houses that might be independent of Saddleback, but blurbs on book jacket are not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Largely per flavius, but I found quite a number of his books. A sales rank of 15,000 at Amazon isn't exactly a best seller, but neither is it indicative of self-published status. I added a few books to the article, and cleaned up some citations--SPhilbrickT 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Publishing lots of books does not guarantee notability. No other reliable sources supporting WP:BIO claim. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:39, 27 October 2009 (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.