Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Howard (writer and scholar)

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. Consenus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Howard (writer and scholar)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article was prodded for deletion because the only source was the subject's web site. I removed all the uncited stuff and reworded two sentences, providing cites (in the process removing some copypasta). However, after searching for third party coverage I'm unsure the subject passes Wikipedia's notability requirements. A Google Book search on the subject's book Evangelical Is Not Enough finds these few mentions including what appears to be an independent review here, for example. As nominator I feel rather neutral - there may be sufficient coverage out there, or a merge target might be suitable, but I feel it needs more input from editors familiar with the subject area. 84user (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Didn't find enough (if any) independent, secondary sources covering this self-professed "scholar". Didn't pass WP:ACADEMIC as no hits on Google scholar as well JSTOR. He's got coverage in terms of Facebook and his own websites, but that just reinforces the advertisement-nature of article. In terms of WP:WRITER, there is one book review, but, as you say, that's not enough to clear the hurtle of notability. His books were also published by very small presses and received little coverage when released. He has mostly religious writings, and I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for insular presses for his works, but even his book on T.S. Elliot is more vanity press (according to WP policy) than bonafide, independent press and like you I can't find more than one review. So her fails WP:WRITER too. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability requirements--BMWcomputer (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I see no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. The sources present in the article may be good enough for verifiability but do not provide the in-depth third-party coverage of the subject required for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 6 August 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.