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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Phillips[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Sources search pulls up nothing that makes me think this individual sufficiently passes WP:BIO, specicially in depth coverage. The one independant source cited *("Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement.") is a very strong criticism of Christian patriarchy that includes fairly staunch criticism of Phillips. I'm uncomfortable with it being used to reference his biography, and I am not overly convinced that the material in book (which does admittedly include some biographical focus) is sufficient to prove notability. I'm struggling to find further independent sources with in-depth coverage. Errant ^(chat!) 20:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete One highly critical third party reference does not notability make. ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per ukexpat and ErrantX. Keep. Per StAnselm, below. Offline sources need to be verified, but we need to AGF that they're reliable until then, especially since the non-offline sources are on the razor's edge of indicating notability already. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are more references that I am working on finding and adding. Jehorn (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, this guy ain't notable. Giant Snowman 22:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I agree that we need more, not fewer, articles on notable clergy, but this clergyman does not pass our notability requirements, especially given BLP concerns. --NellieBly (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Moriori (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Jehorn has done a sterling job of finding sources - these have been added since the deletion nomination. Being a leader in the Independent Christian Film movement is quite distinct to being a leader in the patriarchy movement, and that gets him over the line with notability. There are independent third-part sources providing significant coverage here. St Anselm (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is still not supported by any reliable sources about Doug Phillips. There's a bunch of stuff published by his organisation and a press release published by his PR firm; that's hopeless. Most of what's left is minor coverage of a single small film festival: that might be evidence that the film or the film festival is notable, or that Vision Forum is notable (but not by themselves, and Vision Forum itself is very badly sourced). Notability is not inherited. What's necessary is extensive, independent coverage by reliable sources about Phillips himself; of that there is none. The only thing that talks about him personally is Quiverfull, and one highly critical source isn't adequate for a BLP. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on adding more sources when I have time. Jehorn (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage already shown in the article to pass WP:GNG, and there is more shown at Google News[1] and Google Books[2]. He does appear to be a significant figure: a December 18, 2010 article in The Atlantic named him in a short list of "fundamentalist luminaries".[3] --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made since nomination showing a meeting of WP:GNG and thus WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 7 March 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.