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. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Kloppenborg[edit]

John S. Kloppenborg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Lots of published works listed, but they don't seem to be past the genre of "what a tenured professor is supposed to write anyway" and therefore don't really establish notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The nomination makes very little sense. I would expect a notable scholar in the field of New Testament studies to have written in the genre of "scholarly publications in the field of New Testament studies". How does that make him non-notable? Does a New Testament scholar have to publish political thrillers or porn novels to be notable? If you want to argue that he is not a notable New Testament scholar you need to make a case for that, not claim that he is non-notable because he doesn't do something else. (BTW, Kloppenborg is cited and linked to in several Wikipedia articles on New Testament topics.) Pharamond 10:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, acccording to WP:N, you don't simply find a professor notable based on published works, because every professor does that. The question is -- is Kloppenborg significantly more notable than the average professor, and if so, how so? The article hasn't shown it. --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The really important issue is obviously what influence his work has had, to what extent it is cited and discussed by others. At least here on Wikipedia, he is cited in a number of articles. It is possible that his views are given undue weight in these places. If that is the case, we may have a systemic problem that should be taken care of by people who have some competence in the area. (Are there any actual New Testament scholars on Wikipedia, rather than just religious or anti-religious people with an axe to grind? I hope there are.) But if that is not the case, I think it is of interest to Wikipedia's readers to have an article on him, giving an overview of his scholarship. The article does not look finished, but few articles around here do, and some editors have been working actively on it during the last few weeks. Pharamond 16:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, respected expert/writer/translator. John Vandenberg 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pharamond 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't my field, but even I recognize the quality of the journals in which he has published. The average professor does not publish a dozen books and 50 or so peer-reviewed journal articles! Those who do not know the journals can at least recognize the University of Toronto as a research university of the very highest standing. Such universities do not hire "average professors" in the first place, and most certainly elevate only the exceptional to full professor. Nlu, the article shows the quality be giving his rank and university. They did the quality screening. We just acknowledge it/DGG 02:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a specious nomination, and I suggest that it be withdrawn. He easily passes WP:PROF. See also participation in Slate debate: [1]. nadav 02:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant publications, augmented by citations on Wikipedia itself. JamesMLane t c 09:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep In addition to factors already mentioned, Kloppenberg's notability is based on his original and groundbreaking research into the origins of and his studies of the Q document. He is frequently cited by other authors in regard to this document and interpretations of it and it is helpful to anyone seeing those citations to be able to look up Kloppenberg. I do intend to expand the article more, as I better feel comfortable that I truly understand Kloppenberg's point of view and signifigance in the field.Markisgreen 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep -- a deletion of this article would say that almost no academic could be notable. Far beyond the average professor, almost certainly in the top 1%. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Myke Cuthbert said it all. --Zero^talk 06:58, 20 May 2007 (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.