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 article. No consensus on article name change.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Wood (Christian apologist)

[edit]
David Wood (Christian apologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Non-notable activist. Sources are all YouTube videos. Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC) 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, Fyi, i have since added reliable references. You guys started voting too quickly when i was not done referencing and was not done with the article. I think the votes should start all over again because you guys started voting when this was still a stub; meaning most of the objections are now nullified Someone65 (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding junk like loonwatch.com and thereligionofconquest.com does not impress me in the slightest. My opinion to delete is still quite valid, thanks. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. None of these "references" are reliable third party references, some are blogs, which is never allowed, and the others are YouTube, also not allowed. The rest, not reliable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

o:::*Comment: people can become genuinely notable for writing on notable subjects. DMSBel (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mind fixing the article up, but could you be a bit more specific? where? how? Someone65 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for notability, he's one of the most popular youtube evangelists, he's young but at the forefront of religious debators, he's referenced in books, If you look at the external links section you see how many academic articles he's responsble for creating. Even his lesser known peers have wikipedia articles. He is administrator, owner or major contributor of several websites. He is frequently invited by several Christian channel hosts. H'es possible the number 1 debator at Islam vs Christian events. He's surely notable and suitable for an encyclopedia in my opinion. Someone65 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to citations, please see the family of "cite" templates, template:cite news, template:cite book, and so on. You aren't require to use them specifically but they will show you what a reference citation should look like. Regarding reliable sources to establish notability, you need to find third party secondary sources that mention him and/or his work in a significant way to establish that he is of note. Citing his own works and videos, articles in World Net Daily, opinions, editorials, supporters, commentators, etc., does not. Youtube videos are an interesting example. Hit counts, even millions and millions of views, don't establish notability. They are a fact that one would think would make someone notable, but unless you have a source pointing out how popular he is, simply inferring that yourself from the hit counts does not. If you look at the history and talk page of List of Internet phenomena you'll see this in action. As a counterexample, certain bestseller lists or top movie lists, or awards, establish notability themselves without requiring a secondary source to report on it. An example of unencyclopedic tone is the statement in the lede that he "now focuses on the problem of evil." Starting from the beginning, statements of time if any should be absolute or relative to the subject, and not relative to the writing of the article. Five years from now that statement will remain if nobody updates it, and so the word "now" may become stale. "Focuses" is a little too active. Exactly what does it mean to focus? Does that mean he has lectured more frequently on it? He is researching it? And then what is evil and in what sense is it a "problem"? That's not terribly well defined. Ideally a lede does not need citations, but rather summarizes cited facts from the main article. Nevertheless, rereading it, I don't think it's all that bad so I'll withdraw the part of my comment that it's not viable. If you can find, or point out, the neutral second party reliable sources, that would establish notability. I did some searching, but it's a little difficult because he shares his name with a number of historical figures and somebody in basketball. Also, don't worry about the votes so far. If you show notability, people will change their mind... and the !votes cast before the article was finished will be discounted. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page asking me to revisit, in a few days if you make some progress. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. I accidently copied that when i copy-pasted from another infobox. Someone65 (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is definitely an MVP and professional debator. Im not even a Christian, but I'm familiar with him. If you do a google-video search of 'christian islam debate' you will notice most of the time its either him debating, his adversaries debating, or one of his collegues such as Nabeel Queshi or Sam Shamoun (who are co-owners on websites such as answering-islam.org and other websites). Here's a list of some examples of his debates. Someone65 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other people who are usually listed along with Wood (including Queshi) in his protesting efforts seem to have warranted their own articles either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because i think Wood is more prolific than his colleagues Shamoun and Qureshi. Alhough i did think of creating an article for Shamoun, i think Shamoun is not notable enough. Someone65 (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant 3rd party sources. Ther ones that are do not give much indication that he is a particularly important figure. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I have since added quite a few secondary sources and i think two tertiary sources in the past few hours. However it is difficult to find refs because his name is so common in google. I might get a few more in a while though. Someone65 (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated on your talkpage, only one of the references is a reliable third-party source. The personal sites, blogs and videos are not and (as I have stated) should be replaced. Before you add any references to the page, please read WP:RS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhomer, fyi, it does start to get annoying when someone repeats around EIGHT times to you over different talk pages to read a wikipedia policy. How many more times are you going to follow me around on wiki to ask me to read WP:RS ? Have you got nothing new to say? Its getting boring. You've already said it FOUR times on this talk page and FOUR times on my talk page. Do you always edit like that or what? Someone65 (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you actually listen to me and read the policy and replace all but one of the references on that page with sources that aren't in violation of policy, then yes, I will say something different. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the closing admin. You're not even an administrator so im not per se going to listen to you. This article is still undergoing editing and review. Nevertheless, considering your Track Record i'm not sure whtehr i should follow your example. Someone65 (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you found my block log (anyone find that suspicious?), you will also notice I have been here for 4 years. You have been here about 7 1/2 months. I have learned the rules and policies of Wikipedia, especially the ones about editing articles. So, whether you want to listen to me or not, that is your business, not mine, but if you do, you are likely to get your page saved from deletion. People who listen and are open to corrections, I am more willing to help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been here 7 1/2 months? How do you know? How do you know i wasn't editing on an IP profile or another wiki? Think before you talk please. Someone65 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"2815 edits since: 2010-06-09" according to Popups. That date is when your account was created. It doesn't give me IPs you have edited from. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool it guys. Neutralhomer, that date is 19 months ago. And I'm someone whose date for starting editing here will be deceptive. I have used more than one username , for personal reasons, and have edited from different countries, so not very traceable. (No, I'm not trying to hide.) We must be careful leaping to conclusions. However, I think Someon65 does need to recognise that the videos are not valid sources. They should have been got rid of as soon as the problem was pointed out. HiLo48 (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I am trying to get across. RS has to be followed and videos, blogs and personal sites are not valid sources, but more and more keep getting added. Only one newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, was used in the article, which is an RS. If User:Someone65 would have read WP:RS, they would have seen that these weren't valid, but they haven't and don't seem like they will with what they have said above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, can i put the videos in an external link or something? Someone65 (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would let people go to YouTube themselves. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a valid question, because videos are precisely what this guy does. I imagine they could be put in a See also section, or even one more specifically titled to indicate that they are examples of what he does. Interested in others' ideas here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but wouldn't that violate WP:LINKFARM? Could Someone65 just link to Wood's YouTube channel under "External Links" and not each individual video? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woods youtube channel does not contain these videos. some are from google videos. Someone65 (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I believe it is too much like a linkfarm and shouldn't be done. If people want to find the videos, they can go to Google and search and they will find them easily. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have put them under external links already Someone65 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of WP:LINKFARM is "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links...", which is works very well in this situation. The main YouTube account association with David Wood is allowed under WP:EL, all other videos are fall under WP:LINKFARM. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article should provide sources that establish existing notability. The article shouldn't try to promote individual videos in which Wood has appeared. A single link to the account page would seem appropriate. However, the underlying issue of notability has not been resolved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone65 has removed the YouTube and Google Video links, but left the official YouTube account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article looks pretty good now. Someone65 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you WP:NOTNEWS, here's what I mean by this. Carl Myles in 2006 stole a goat it was covered by BBC News [1], The Sun (United Kingdom) [2] and USA Today [3] we do not have an article for the Welshman now do we. Afro (Talk) 03:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name "David Wood" brings up 8 David Woods (including this one)in a wikipedia search, all of whom have a secondary title applied, i.e., there is a David Wood (actor and writer), a David Wood (basketball), David Wood (philosopher) etc. The term "apolgist" is used correctly under this DW, and so to disambiguate between the multiple DW's, it should be kept. Vyselink (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issues isn't whether the term "apologist" is correctly applied here. The issue is whether that is the best description seeing as it automatically carries with it highly negative connotations. Also, Christian apologist is just a silly sounding job title (or referential name). Surely there is a broader category into which we could fit him? Religious scholar? Historian? Academic? Theologian? Public Speaker? Activist? Christian Advocate?LedRush (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how "apologist" is "highly negative". It is an academic/theological term that actually PROMOTES whatever religion/thought it is referring to, in this case Christianity. Some of the most famous/popular Christian saints, such as Saint Jerome and Thomas Aquinas, were apologists, and I do not think that Christians would say that they have a "silly sounding job title" I would argue that David Wood is NOT a religious scholar, as he hasn't attempted to give/find new insights. Nor is he a historian, theologian, and he is apparently barely an academic, which I would definitely argue that he is not that either. Public Speaker is WAAAAAY too broad, and activist isn't specific enough. Christian Advocate........I can kind of see that one, but seeing as how what he does is really apologetic in nature, I still believe that Christian Apologist is not only technically correct, but also realistically describes what he is. "Apologist" is not a dirty/negative word/term, and I am truly baffled as to why so many people seem to think it is. Vyselink (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though there are many articles on Wikipedia about 'apologists' (in this context), it looks as though there are only two articles that include "(Christian apologist)" (including this one), only two with "(apologist)", as well as one "(Catholic apologist)" (excluding redirects in all cases). It would therefore seem that it should be tagged as something else both for this article (if kept), as well as the others. It seems unusual that a person notable as an 'apologist' would not inherently be notable as something else, e.g. theologian/author/etc.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mind the use of theologian as this is used in many other titles in the Christian apologists category list Someone65 (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my more general statement, "a person notable as an 'apologist'", should not be construed as meaning that I have changed my position regarding Wood's notability in particular.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with labeling him a "theologian". A theologian is someone who "does" (for lack of a better immediate term) theology. Theology "is the rational and systematic study of religion" (per wikipedia) or "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience" per Merriam-Webster. He does not study religion, he defends the Christian viewpoint. What Wood does is not theology, it is apologetic (per wikipedia): "Apologetics (from Greek απολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason. Early Christian writers (c. 120-220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called apologists.In modern times, apologists refers to authors, writers, editors or academic journals, and leaders known for defending the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that receive great popular scrutinies or are minority views. That last bit is David Wood to a T. Although not highly well known, if he is to be included in Wikipedia, he should be labeled by what he does, which would make him a Christian apologist/apologetic, especially given the fact that there are 7 more "David Woods". The only other "title" that makes sense would be Christian Advocate, although it is not as correct as apologist. Jeffro77's arguement that only 2 others are labeled "apologist" is not a valid reason for NOT labeling Wood what he is. I'm guessing that the majority of apologists are not named as such either because they are A) better known as something else (i.e. no point in saying Thomas Aquinas (Christian Apologist) or Saint Jerome (Christian apologetic) as they are saints), or B) there are not many other people with the same name. Vyselink (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree with Vyselink - Apologist is not a derogatory term, it might be better here than Theologian. He is however also a member of two philosophical societies and has a degree in Philosophy.DMSBel (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing with me DMSBel. The only point I would like to make is that I have a degree in History, and am a member of several historical societies (including the American Historical Associaton) but I am not a historian. His degree in Philosophy (which come to think of it I actually haven't seen anywhere that he has one. I'll have to look) does not make him a philosopher, let alone a theologian. Vyselink (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that Christian Apologist is most fitting here. Every apologist engages either in writing or speaking and debating. So those activities are not primary but part of how he performs his work of Apologetics. And yes membership of philosophical societies does not in itself make one a philosopher. I am completely in agreeance with you that Theologian would be incorrect here. He is definitely listed as a Teaching Fellow in Philosophy on Fordham University website here [[4]]. So I am not completely opposed to that title but see no problem with Chrisian Apologist. DMSBel (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that when I suggested tagging with 'theologian', I was referring to articles tagged with 'apologist' in a generic sense, and not recommending the term be used specifically for Wood. However, if he is notable, there should be some better way of tagging him. But still not convinced sufficient notability has been established for Wood.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes after watching the article improve over some time. I have decided that my "vote" is a valid opinion in this particular Afd as it is per fact Notable. Case closed.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you still have ~3 days to change your mind and actually add substance you your !vote and avoid havuing it discounted (as it no doubt will) at closing time. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 26 January 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.
More