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. No doubt this is going to Deletion Review but I think the close is relativelty straightforward. The keep side have produced sources but they appear to be from non-RSs, are passing mentions or are not specifically about the subject. The korean sources in particular have been well analysed and they do not meet RS. This leaves a keep argument based on being head of a theological seminary. The policy on this is clear. The head of of a majot academic institution is notable. An institution with 100 students is not a major institution and none of the keep adherants have shown any consensus elsewhere on wikipedia that refutes this. This leave us with the delete arguments. The primary one being the lack of sourcing,, This is a clear problem for the article. No decent reliable sources have been adduced and its clear that a thorough search for them has taken place. This defaults to delete. I would also note that subguidelines like prof are predicated that their notability criteria actually indicate individuals who will be covered in reliable sources. This essentially means that when a thorough search for sources has drawn a blank then the subguidelines is weakened compared to the main notability guidelines which asserts the need for sources. This is why, in any dispute over the primacy of a reliability guideline GNG always trumps the subguideline. Anyway, the policy based arguments here are the delete votes. Spartaz Humbug! 03:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Stephen[edit]

Jonathan Stephen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ACADEMIC as head of a small seminary, fails WP:BIO absent coverage in third-party sources. (Cited sources are either not third-party or not coverage of Stephen; quoting him in an article about a fellow churchgoer is not coverage of him.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus his book[2]I.Casaubon (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user was notified of this nomination through canvassing. bW 22:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No actually this was not canvassing. See WP:CANVASS to learn what "canvassing" actually entails. Fountainviewkid 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unstruke - Except he hasn't. bW 05:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notification's legitimate (these users had indeed edited the article before) and neutral. If I.Casaubon will now notify every other user who has edited the article, not just those whom he thinks will vote to keep it, then we can avoid a canvassing debacle. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the definition of canvassing, Casaubon was not inappropriately canvassing. It says under Appropriate Notification "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion" can be a place of discussion, must as you did over on the wall of another editor.Fountainviewkid 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if the notification had been posted to a WikiProject instead of to the talk pages of individual users, no one would have pointed out that I.C was canvassing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked "show history" and notified two editors , skipping editors who, when I clicked "contribution" had not edited for a long time (years) and those who had only made technical edits, i.e. adding categories. If that is a sin, mea culpa - I htought it was an efficient way to notify editors who were interested in the topic.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I went and read WP:CANVASS. It states: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: * The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." that's what I did. What did I do wrong?I.Casaubon (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)JPL appears also only to have added a category, which is why it comes across as suspicious. It wasn't wrong to notify potentially interested users, but if you notify them selectively, you risk the appearance of impropriety.
As I said to FVK, you did not post at a WikiProject talk page, but rather at user talk pages. A WikiProject talk page would be something like the talk pages for WP:Christianity or WP:Berks. Hope that helps, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVASS states that it is appropriate to place a message on the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. that's what I did.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I hope you'll prevent this from going further by notifying other users who have contributed to the article (Emeraude, Chromenano, Coyets, Jaraalbe have made no fewer contributions to the article than JPL and are not inactive) and not a select few. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just clicked down the list. the editors you suggest contacting haven't been around in months, or made purely technical edits. Which is why i didn't contact them the first time I when through the list. why waste the time?I.Casaubon (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true; I only named the ones that made no fewer contributions than the editors you notified (ie. some only added or altered a category, but that's the same thing that JPL, whom you chose to notify, did) and who've been around recently. (But I see that you've notified some of them - thank you.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found several third party references. While we can debate how strong they are, they do exist. Those references describe him as "a noted Evangelical conservative" and list the various organizations he has headed or directed. The sources were varied from science education centers to religious organization websites. Fountainviewkid 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did another Google search and found several more articles where he is mentioned as well as in Google Books. He is also mentioned in several places in Google Scholar as an authoritative source. Fountainviewkid 12:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to share those links with us.  Ravenswing  13:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right there are quite a few. One of the first is a book on Google titled "Unlocking the Bible Story: Old Testament 1". He is mentioned by the author for "his insights into the theophanies in the early chapters". The second book mention is "Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution" where is mentioned in a similar vain. The books authors including several prominent evangelicals including John Piper. He is also mentioned in the British Centre for Science Education [5] in relationship to the YEC debate. It quotes he "is a noted evangelical conservative. He is past President of Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC), is on the council of reference of Biblical Creation Ministries (as is Stuart Olyott). He also heads up Affinity (formerly the British Evangelical Council), a hard line evangelical organisation (as distinct from the Evangelical Alliance which is seen as more liberal). Affinity has long been linked to FIEC. He is also noted as a presenter at the Preaching Today conference [6].Fountainviewkid 2:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, is this a joke? The mention in "Unlocking the Bible Story" is as part of an acknowledgments section, and the "mention" in Pierced for Our Transgressions is his quote about the book, not anything about him. PreachingToday is obviously not a third-party source if it hired him to speak, and the BCSE mention is trivial - he doesn't inherit notability from his school. You're going to have to do better than that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The BCSE mention is NOT trivial. It describes the leadership and organizations he has been involved in beyond his school. While it is true he is mentioned in conjunction with his school, the description goes beyond just the school. For example it says that he "is a noted evangelical conservative". To me "noted" and "notability" are pretty synonymous. Furthermore he is the past President of Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) which has a good sized article here on wikipedia. FIEC has 500 churches representing thousands of members. Also Affinity which he helped head is a major Evangelical organization in the UK. He is on the council of Biblical Creation Ministries as well. As the leader/head of several of these organizations I would argue notability is achieved.Fountainviewkid 18:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The BCSE IS trivial. It is a wiki page that can be edited by anyone with an account. Bgwhite (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I didn't even notice the "edit page" link. Good catch. Yeah, that would make it unreliable no matter how much information it contained about him. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity in the UK is much smaller than in the US. I'd guess that many seminaries have around 100 students. It's difficult to relate size to notability. But in any case, my view is that the subject's overall CV makes him notable. Also try searching for his name on the website of Evangelicals Now - you get a good number of hits. Sidefall (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is mocking other people. Articles for Deletion (AfD) is a normal process to weed out articles that maybe non notable. The article may have been created in Good Faith, but that doesn't mean it should automatically be kept. Bgwhite (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a post of with "Wait, is this a joke?" is clearly a case of mocking other people. However the main point is that the size of an institution is no way to measure its importance. Eveyone will agree that Harvard Univeristy is more inportant than Arizona State University, but size does not determine this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen was also the director of the FIEC, which as you noted is the one "doing the work". I said head or president but I also meant director. It appears he held all of the various positions at one point or another. FIEC is an important organization. If you look at him in connection with the organization I would argue notability is achieved. I've already posted the mentions about him in books. One was acknowledgements where he was noted for "his insights into the theophanies in the early chapters [of a certain Biblical book]." I would argue his involvement in other organizations makes him notable. Also he has written several significant articles for "Evangelicals Now" a British Evangelical monthly which also has an article on Wikipedia. Furthermore his leadership of "Affinity" (the British Evangelical Council is notable as this article describes [7]) You are right in that his common name makes it hard to find information on him, but it is there. You just have to use key words and know what you're looking for. As someone familiar with the Evangelical world I was able to find this information rather easily. Finally rather than just book and principal I say his leadership of the organizations should also be considered, especially since their part of his main accomplishments.Fountainviewkid 00:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to need your help to find articles in google searches for me as his name makes it difficult. As you are familiar and have found them, could you show me what to search for? Some other things... I can find nowhere he was director of FIEC, just president. Could you find me a reference for this? For the books you have mentioned, I'll quote Roscelese, "The mention in "Unlocking the Bible Story" is as part of an acknowledgments section, and the "mention" in Pierced for Our Transgressions is his quote about the book." Are there any other books I've missed? Don't think the reference you gave for Affinity [8] was one you wanted to show as it puts them in a negative light. I'm not familiar with Affinity or FIEC and how notable they are. Could you explain better to a non-British Evangelical person like me. Bgwhite (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already posted several articles, but if you want I will try and post EVERYTHING that I have found. As for FIEC in the magazine "Evangelicals Now" it quotes "Jonathan Stephen, former President of FIEC and now the Director of Affinity..." [9]. So whether it's FIEC/Affinity/BEC he was the head/director/President. My point is that there is at least one of these organizations which he was the leader of (as in doing the work and being the one in charge). As for the source on Affinity, yes that was the reference I wanted to show. My point is not to advocate or put in any favorable light but to demonstrate notability, which I argue that article does quite well. If you want to learn about FIEC or Affinity you can simply type it into the search here on wikipedia. The article can be found here Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. To learn about Affinity you can also go to wikipedia Affinity (Christian organisation). These organizations are rather notable in the world of British Evangelicalism in that FIEC is made up of over 1300 congregations (churches) and something like 50,000 members. He has also written at least one book titled "Theophany: Close Encounters with the Son of God". Google that book and you will see it listed in pretty much every Christian book center. He also wrote the introduction for the book "Tales of Two Cities: Christianity and Politics" published by Inter-Varsity Press [10]. He has also written for "Evangelical Times" [11] the other famous British Evangelical monthly paper. The publisher can be found here Evangelical Press. He is also listed on the "Spurgeon's College Notable Alumni" found here [12]. As for other articles on Jonathan Stephens, I will simply post several for you to look at. You may have to search for his name in these, but he is there. Some of the links will be random, but I argue they all at some level show notability. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] (the official magazine of the Wales Presbyterian Church), [25], and [26]. While I know you will say some of these links do not demonstrate notability, if you read closer you will see first, that they describe his position in the organizations and also as an authority, second they show his depth of scholarship, and they show his overall influence in British and even more specifically Welsh Evangelical circles. Based on one of these sources he is in the top 3 most influential Welsh Evangelical leaders. Hopefully that helps provide a bit more information that couldn't previously be found by anyone else. Fountainviewkid 2:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not convinced that we have clear precedents on who is doing the work. If he was both director and president it is not a pertinent question. However the precedent seems to be that those who hold titles like president are more likely to be ruled notable than those who "do the work".John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have done "both" at one time or another. I argue the answer to such questions is "all of the above". Fountainviewkid 2:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Several have commented above that his college is not a "major academic institution" and that he is consequently not notable. However, there is now some level of precedent, established mainly by what might be called the "rosh yeshiva" argument (see e.g. recent cases here and here) that even small religious colleges are "major academic institutions". I have argued against this interpretation in the past, but am certainly willing to abide by what seems to be an emerging consensus. Agricola44 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

In the rosh yeshiva debates it seems to have been accepted that "the dean of a college" is notable as a result of holding that position. Is this actually the consensus view on the matter in wikipedia?
It is certainly not a precedent, nor is it a consensus view. For it to be a consensus view there needs to be a unified discussion, such as at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Anyway, a number of articles of college principals have been deleted. See here, here and here. The relevant guideline is WP:Prof#C6. StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not appear to have a consensus either way here though there seems to be a trend to keep the article. I have noted a large amount of references which I argue demonstrate notability, such as his heading various British Evangelical organizations, his books, and his published articles in academic and church journals. Also he has been quoted as being influential by the BBC and by other prominent religious leaders. Fountainviewkid 2:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have not claimed the "rosh yeshiva" argument to be established consensus, but rather one that seems to be emerging in the sense that several recent cases are indeed setting some level of precedence. Specifically, it would be a prima facie contradiction to retain such individuals from Jewish religious colleges as notable, while rejecting their counterparts from religious colleges of other persuasions as non-notable. These are the sorts of gaffes that make WP look not only biased, but silly. For the record, I agree in principle with your basic position (I said above I've argued against this in the past). To wit, I said here that "most small religious colleges like HTC are not considered [major academic instutions], for reasons variously including small enrollment, narrow focus of study, lack of significant research or other notable scholarly impact, lack of division-level athletics, lack of national visibility, and so on and so forth". I think the vagueness of "major academic institution" is allowing for ever greater abuse and, consequently, aiding the "Facebook-ization" of WP for academics. I think this will ultimately have to be settled with a refinement to policy and cases like this provide impetus. Subordinating my view to the broader trend I've personally experienced, I'll stay with "keep" on this one, but with obvious reservation. Hopefully, that explains matters. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out the "keep" vote above because you may not vote more than once in the same discussion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you if Stephen were merely just another "obscure theologian". However, as the President and director of several prominent theological organizations and authority on British Evangelicalism his influence is large enough that I argue he warrants inclusion. Additionally, the rosh yeshiva argument seems to warrant his inclusion; at least until Wikipedia decides to adjust the guidelines. Fountainviewkid 22:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be little third party coverage to substantiate the claim that the "theological organizations" Stephen is head of are "prominent". Certainly neither the Wales Evangelical School of Theology nor Affinity (Christian organisation) show any evidence of prominence. "British Evangelicalism" is a very small pond to be the 'big fish' of. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of evidence (third party specifically) to substantiate the claim that the organizations are prominent. Unless of course the leading British news sources (both papers & the BBC) are not considered "coverage". Affinity represents over 1,300 churches. That's not exactly a "small pond" in terms of notability standards here. Technically you could argue that pretty much any article is the "big fish" of the small ponds. That is largely what encyclopedias are. They take the most important and noticeable items (people, places, events) and describe them for the populace as a whole. If you want I could post another 20 or so links demonstrating the notability of the various organizations, but our debate here is on Stephen not the organizations. Fountainviewkid 4:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Google News reveals no coverage from "leading British news sources (both papers & the BBC)" on Wales Evangelical School of Theology (just one hit from WalesOnline and 4 hits from Korean sites). Affinity is a bit more problematical due to its generic title -- but various combinations of 'affinity' 'evangelical' and/or 'british' do not turn up any (prominently-featured) relevant Google News hits. It's own website leaves it ambiguous as to the extent to which it "represents" the constituent churches -- describing itself as a "partnership" and stating only that they are "in fellowship" with Affinity via their parent groups.[45] HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Google News won't have much on the school or the organization. It tends to only have more recent information and especially focuses on the most prominent news sources. I have never seen Google News be used as the standard for notability of a school or organization. If that were the case then many many private colleges that are well established would not be allowed to have articles here for example Southern Adventist University, Andrews University,Atlantic Union College, etc.You also have to use other search terms such as "British Evangelical Council" of "Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches". Generic titles are no reason to declare lack of notability, especially when information has already been posted from several authoritative sources. Look especially in the British religious journals of the Presbyterians, Evangelicals Now, Evangelical Times, and you will see large amounts of information. These journals are not the official journal of the organization either so they can qualify as a secondary source. I did find some references, though, to the various organizations on the BBC, and the Daily Mail. I still think however that a large part of this stands on the "rosh yeshiva" argument. Regardless of the organizations/books/articles, etc. as long as the "rosh yeshiva" argument is considered acceptable then Stephen achieves notability. With that argument the specific issues we are currently debating are largely irrelevant. Fountainviewkid 16:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make up your bloody mind! First you say "leading British news sources (both papers & the BBC)" (which would most certainly be covered by Google News) are covering the organisations, then when I prove that claim to be WRONG, you claim "Of course Google News won't have much on the school or the organization." According to Affinity (Christian organisation), the "British Evangelical Council" went "moribund" decades before it was renamed & relaunched under Stephen, so it is unclear how any (unsubstantiated) notability of the old incarnation reflects upon him. Announcements in "authoritative" AFFILIATED sources does nothing to add to notability. In any case, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so Stephen's notability has to be established independently of these organisations. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use AFFILIATED sources. Simply because Stephen wrote in them does not make them affiliated. The Church journal sources are relevant as they are valid and reliable and demonstrate notability. His notability is demonstrated as a result of being the leader of these organizations. You can't separate one without the other. It's like trying to argue that a certain person is notable, without being allowed to say why they're notable. Fountainviewkid 12:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does Stephen frequently write for Evangelicals Now, but its editor's church is a member of Affinity. I would suggest that this demonstrates quite a clear degree of affiliation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can also look in Evangelical Times, which is not associated with any of his organizations as far as I know. He has articles there too. Fountainviewkid 12:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the rosh yeshiva argument is accepted by the community as according to Agricola44 it might be, then Stephen needs to stay. There is plenty of evidence in third party source of his notability. Fountainviewkid 12:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's be honest. There are, in practice, only 2 possible outcomes of an AfD, "keep" and "delete". The euphemism "no consensus" is precisely the same as its default of "keep" because those articles are indeed permanently retained. Moreover, the "rosh yeshiva" argument is not purported. There are many cases (of which I cited two recent ones) where the "major academic institution" argument has been successfully used to retain heads of small Jewish colleges (that is the precedent, could not make this any more clear) and (simultaneously, actually) used to delete counterparts from other religions. In sum, retaining one religious persuasion over others is what gives the impression of bias, which basically discredits WPs reputation as an objective encyclopedic source of information. Even though all such articles are simply just a form of "boosterism", in my opinion, it is much more important to treat them consistently. They all stay, or they all go. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • By the way, you can expect this problem to become more pronounced, ...er... precedent to become stronger. As an example, HTC (which I mentioned above) already has its own dedicated template upon which about another 25 red-linked "rosh yeshiva" and "former rosh yeshiva" bios are queued-up for creation. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rebuttal: there is a very obvious difference between "no consensus" and "keep" that is very relevant to its application to this issue. Where there is explicitly "no consensus" that non-existent consensus CANNOT provide the basis for a precedent (and in any case, the existence of relevant, contrary outright-delete decisions would undercut any minuscule precedental significance such 'no consensus'es might have). This is a clear attempt at guideline creep, and makes the "Let's be honest" prefixed to Agricola44's comments more than a little ironic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You may continue to argue in the abstract all you wish. Those pages were kept, which anyone may see for themselves here and here – validation, I believe, of my argument of what happens in actual practice. Guidelines have already crept, as it were. Agricola44 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
This [47] series of articles in Evangelicals Now also supports WP:N.I.Casaubon (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" did you fail to comprehend? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What part of these reliable sources are not "independent"? Simply because it's an Evangelical magazine does not mean we have to eliminate it as a source for notability anymore than we'd eliminate a political magazine for providing notability of a political leader. Fountainviewkid 5:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
They appear to be articles by Stephen. That would, by definition, make them not independent of him. Guettarda (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The list of articles includes articles that are about Stephen [48], articles that discuss his published work and opinions [49], interviews with Stephen [50] and articles that are written by Stephen. Of course, when magazines publish your articles, this is part of what makes you WP:N.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Not true"? All 10 articles on the page you linked to, the first page of the search, are by Stephen, as is one of the next 9, while the last 3 aren't related to him at all. Please don't accuse me of not being truthful when, in fact, every article on the page you linked to is actually by Stephen. That aside, the source can't be independent of Stephen if he writes for it. As for "when magazines publish your articles, this is part of what makes you WP:N" - no, this is not true. Please read WP:N. Writing for some obscure magazine or website does not make you notable. It's funny really...I'm pretty sure I'm more Wikipedia-notable than this guy. And I'm absolutely certain I'm not notable. Guettarda (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, its not true I just double checked. you have to read further than the list (which is three pages long, with more than "10 articles" Some are by Stephen, some are about him, at least one is an interview with him. Just click the links I posted. It is certainly not ture that you cannot write for a publicaiton that is independent of you. Think a minute. Lots of the pastors, politicians and genaral pooh-bahs with pages on wikipedia write the occasional article for The Atlantic or the Washington Post op-ed page. That does not mean that they are not independent of these publications. This is true even of publications with a political inflection, The Guardian, The New Republic, The National Review which are probably a better analogy for the relationship of someone like Stephen with Evangelicals Now which claims: "The editors are responsible to a board of directors headed by William MacKenzie, and are accountable to 40 ‘members’ who support the board in running EN." [51] I suspect that, like The Christian Century, The New Republic or First Things, Evangelicals Now publishes articles almost exclusively by authors who agree with it's ideological commitments. This does not mean that the authors are not independent of the publication, unless, as in some cases, they are.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



As someone pointed out earlier, the BCSE page is user-created and anyone with an account can edit it, making it inadmissible as a source for anything. I'm heading over to remove it now. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not So The BCSE webpage includes a Wiki on which they follow the politics aof creationism in Britain. But not just "anyone" can edit. This is a wiki, but it's not Wikipedia. You first have to have to become a member of the British Centre for Scientific Education. Only members can edit. This needs further looking into.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2011I.Casaubon (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) (UTC)I.Casaubon (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored this material to the page and taken the question of source reliability to the article's talk page.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is this [52] interview/profile in a monthly magazine, and there is the fact that he has been the head of an sizable seminary, called to the pulpit of an important church church, and headed two WP:N Christian organizations, Affinity (Christian organisation) and the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. There was Stephen's role as a political activist on behalf of the imprisoned Ian Stillman[53][54][55] And then we have a political advocacy outfit, the British Centre for Science Education, calling Stephen "a leading creationist and deeply conservative evangelical minister" and "an influential" young earth creationist who has turned the Wales Evangelical School of Theology into "a leading centre of creationism amongst theological training seminaries."I.Casaubon (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there's one profile of him (in a pretty minor source), and a few mentions in the context of the Stillman affair. The "Get Surrey" content is essentially one story, and Stephen is more a source than the subject. WP:BIO requires multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and I don't believe that this coverage meets that requirement. as for his role in these other organisations - please see WP:INHERITED. He cannot inherit their notability just because he worked for them. In addition, given the lack of independent, reliable third-party sources in those articles, I see no evidence that "Affinity" is actually notable.

As for the BCSE article - please note that it cites Wikipedia. While I think that BCSE can be a reliable source, that specific article cites Wikipedia extensively. That's a big problem for any source. Its mention of Stephen is also very much passing mention. For those reasons I don't think it should be used. Guettarda (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We differ. *Treasury [56] is the monthly magazine of the Presbyterian Church of Wales and the profile closes with a lament that Stephen will never hold the pulpit in one of their churches. When a rival denomination sees a pastor as important enough to pofile, that's notable. * Here he is interviewed on the BBC[[57]], [58] - BBC must have some reason for deciding to interview Stephen, such as, he's a particularly notable minister. * On l'affaire Ian Stillman there were a series of articles over about 2 years, in this one [59][60] about half the content is about Stephen and his relationship with Stillman, including the fact that it was Stephen's Carey Baptist Church that sponsored Stillman's mission in India, and the fact tat the Church not only regularly brought Stillman back from India to speak (and, presumably, to visit his family in Reading,) but that Stephen traveled to India to visit Stillman's work with the deaf there. It is, in other words, about Stephen in addition to being about Stillman and substantiates Stephen's notability. * As for the BCSE articles (there are two) [61] the first cites many sources and seems to have a single citation to Wikipedia. The second cites many sources including several citations to Wikipedia.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Blurbing books is something you don't get asked to do unless the author and publisher regard you as notable enough that your name on the book will sell copies. Stephen blurbs quite a lot of books. Here are a few: [62], [63], [64], [65]I.Casaubon (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed my 'delete' opinion because of the various references listed by Fountainviewkid, the reference from the Bible League Trust certainly displays third party coverage of the subject, but the other references which are not merely trivial mentions are from religious organisations which I find difficult to tell whether they are third party sources or not. However, the Wales Online and Evangelical Times references from I:Casaubon also seem to be third party coverage confirming the subject's notability. Unfortunately, I could not find an interview on the BBC, and the BBC's inclusion of the subject on a panel for a talk show does not confirm or deny notability. However, the Get Surrey reports are on the subject's campaign to free Ian Stillman, and that, together with the other references I have mentioned, probably amounts to just enough notability for an article. Coyets (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also to the closing admin: whilst it is possible that some few of the plethora of badly-formatted references added today may be reliable, independent and offer significant coverage of the topic, it would appear that the bulk fail on one or other of these three points. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that the bulk of the references provided during this discussion are totally irrelevant because they provide no evidence of notability, but we need to concentrate on those that are relevant. The fact that someone is providing many references which need to be ignored is also totally irrelevant to the question we are trying to answer as to whether the subject is notable. Coyets (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, very perceptive. I noticed this as well. In one case the spelling was John Stevens or something to that effect. I checked to see if it was the same person and sure enough, unless there's another "John Stevens" with the exact same biography (dean of WEST, director of Affinity, Welsh, etc.). That's why I voted "Keep" and worked to find a number of sources. Fountainviewkid 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Church bulletin do not get picked up by news google. Large Christian newspapers do. The Korean papers are named "Hunan Power News Power Chungcheong News", the second seems to be called Christian Today, I'm working on it and trying to add the English translation of the names to the references, but some of the bold face Korean script (i.e. the stuff that looks like a masthead) won't copy as text, only as image.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here [69] you can see the home page of one of the papers, with what I take to be a screen shot of the hard copy (print) edition. I take this one to be a Christian newspaper. Perhaps they all are. Korea is one of the world's more dynamic and largest Christian communities. For all I know they may have multiple, large daily or weekly Christian newspapers. That sort of thing doesn't really exist anymore in the U.K., but some Latin countries still have Catholic dailies, Poland has the very popular Gosc Niedzielny (owned by the Archdiocese of Katowice). Where such papers exist I suppose them to be as reliable (or un-) as any other ideologically inflected newspaper might be. (You hardly get the same slant inthe New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, or the Telegraph and the Guardian, all) So, I can't tell whether some of these newspapers are newspapers are Christin or secular. But I expect that even a church bulletin, let along a newspaper big enough to be picked up by news google and have a print edition like the one in the photo) could be trusted to accurately report a partnership between a megachurch and a Bible College.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the papers [http://www.kukinews.com/news/nMain/index.asp} is apparently secular. I Just had to share this translation [http://news.kukinews.com/article/view.asp?page=1&gCode=kmi&arcid=0004703613&cp=nv} Where google turns a Welsh seminary principal into a General: "Stephen, General 'has been praying for this job four years,' he was thrilled. General Stephen 'the unreached land in Western Europe, but rejected the gospel of God left the ground,' said 'to spread the gospel in Europe once again please pray for lead,' he said." Amen.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my question - I asked how you decided that these are BLP-appropriate reliable sources. The fact that one has a paper copy doesn't mean a whole lot - I get our Conference newsletter in paper every week...it looks just like a newspaper. But that doesn't mean I'd use it as a source in a Wikipedia article, much less to establish the notability of someone mentioned in it. If you can't even provide the name of the publication you're linking to, I don't see how you can assert that it's a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you cut and paste the text into google translate, it is clear that these articles are about the support that Jonathan Stephen negotiated to have the College he heads receive ongoing support from the Korean church. They are not passing mentions.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything better? YES! Many many sources demonstrating his notability. See the whole discussion above. The reason why some "delete" editors changed their mind. Fountainviewkid 18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The others have all been clearly debunked. The only thing being discussed is whether the Korean sources change anything. I do not think they do. bW 18:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, perhaps. But User:Coyets notes above in his reversal of his early deletion vote, "I have removed my 'delete' opinion because of the various references listed by Fountainviewkid, the reference from the Bible League Trust certainly displays third party coverage of the subject, but the other references which are not merely trivial mentions are from religious organisations which I find difficult to tell whether they are third party sources or not. However, the Wales Online and Evangelical Times references from I:Casaubon also seem to be third party coverage confirming the subject's notability.... the Get Surrey reports are on the subject's campaign to free Ian Stillman, and that, together with the other references I have mentioned, probably amounts to just enough notability for an article. Coyets (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)" Note that his assessment was made before the Korea material was added to the article.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And even with that change of vote, absent the Korea material, the discussion was ruled to have consensus for deletion. Hence, any further arguments is regarding the KOREAN sources. I'm waiting to hear an evaluation on the reliability of those. bW 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh no. The deletion was removed. The other sources are relevant to the debate. Fountainviewkid 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the reason why it was relisted is irrelevant now. In fact, there were six keep votes and six delete votes, so the consensus to delete was marginal at best. In fact, I can't really see that consensus in the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's all nice as well as irrelevant. Do you have evidence of substantial coverage in third party sources? That is what is required for WP:NOTABILITY. No, we do not have a WP:NotabilityForChristianIndividualsWhoDontMeetTheGeneralGuideline. bW 22:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many. But being head of an accredited college that grants the PhD and attracts students form the other side of the world is sufficient.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to what notability guideline? That's not in WP:NOTABILITY and there is no WP:NotabilityForPresidentsOfSmallCollegesThatGivesAFewDoctoratesAYear. So again, which notability guideline, and HOW? bW 22:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One would surmise that if this were truly "on par with being an archbishop," this individual would be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources like an archbishop. This has yet to be conclusively demonstrated, however. I see a number of reasons to expect notability expressed above, but no proof. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - one would also note that the church structure of the Catholic churches and most protestant churches are very different. Catholic churches are very top down, meaning the Archbishop is much more influential, than in a congregationalist system that most protestants prefer. bW 22:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis
My Korean is quite sketchy at most, and so I've done as much as I can to gain somewhat of an understanding.
  • [70] is a site that focuses on NGO activities, political and social events, culture, etc. It is not a "dedicated news website" of sorts (like CNN, BBC, etc), and is potentially partisan. The site has other articles such as "Walk the way of the Lord mission", "Group punishment is constitutional in relation to homosexual acts", "A Council of the devil is a necessary evil", "There is no glory without the cross", "The Glory of God to determine legal contentions", "Gay movies: Should our youth be watching these?", "The Holy Spirit is dissatisfied with provincial leaders", which also suggest partisanship. Some of the articles somewhat resemble evangelism. I could not find an organization mission statement on the site though.
  • [71] is a Christian news site, and thus is potentially partisan. (Partisan sites are generally not considered WP:RS, unless the topic is about the partsan side themselves; e.g. you can cite the Amnesty International website to write about Amnesty International organization, however you cannot cite them to reference the number of abortions done in Ghana, as partisan sites are sometimes not neutral in their guesses and estimates) The site is managed by a Christian community organization. However, this website is not as "evangelical" as the first, and does report events in a matter-of-fact, normal way (e.g. "Church leaders meet with XYZ", "School built in XYZ")
  • [72] is also a Christian news website. Not as evangelical as the first website, however does host some rather odd, fringe topics ("The boy's three minutes was his time amongst the celestials!").

Hope that helps. A note that I can't really conceretely say whether a site is a valid reliable source or not; I'll leave that judgment to you. I am unsure of what to make of these, and I cannot solidly confirm anything, so you might take my words with a grain of salt; it's up to you on how you interpret the above. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his analysis, I conclude that the sources, which are mostly partisan, are unreliable for a biography of a living person. After reading the commentary by Roscelese (talk · contribs), I believe that this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Today

Is Christianity Today Magazine a reliable source on third parties? In particular is it a reliable source on Islamic countries, or citizens from Islamic countries? This shows that it is a non-objective source. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good resource for Christians and those seeking healing. But don't think its a good source for wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly Christianity Today is written from an evangelical Christian point of view. But that does not mean that the information in their news section is inaccurate. For example, the following item about events in an Islamic country appeared in its News Briefs section: The Malaysian government has ruled that non-Muslim publications may not use the word Allah. The Herald, a Catholic newspaper, filed a lawsuit against the government December 5 protesting the prohibition, and it continued to use Allah in its 2008 editions. [73] This item was accurate, as can be seen from the International Herald Tribune and Reuters. Hence, we should not assume that Christianity Today is inaccurate in its coverage of news events in Islamic countries. Each citation to Christianity Today should be judged on its own merits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is reliable for statements of opinion (ie for statements about what the magazine says). As for statements of fact, I agree with Metropolitan90... each citation should be checked out, to be sure that the admitted evangelical bias of the magazine is not distorting the facts... but that needs to be done on a citation by citation basis. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased sources are not equivalent to unreliable sources. While bias can obviously affect reliability, it is not a question that should be resolved by using other sources to disprove their points and cast them as "unreliable". That is an approach contrary to our only founding content principle: NPOV (see m:Foundation issues). Generally, the use of biased sources should be evaluated based on proper weight. For example, extremist sources are often considered unreliable, but the clearest (and most fundamental) principle excluding them from use is NPOV, which excludes extreme minority views. All that said, the reason question at hand in this case is whether or not the evangelical Christian perspective is significant enough for inclusion in the article in question. Vassyana (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is incorrect. The linked source is not the Korean edition of Christianity Today, which can be found here. It is a different publication with a suspiciously similar URL and some apparently fringe-y content, per above analysis. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:24, 30 May 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