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. The clear consensus here is to keep, with multiple references to WP:PROF as well as the size and impact of his published work. The lack of inline citations in the article is a problem, but not one that invalidates the keep !votes, per WP:ARTN/WP:NPOSSIBLE. ST47 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Gentry[edit]

Kenneth Gentry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Writing a lot of non-notable books or contributing to non-notable articles doesn't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Writing a lot of non-notable books or contributing to non-notable articles doesn't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF #1. Google Scholar shows a high level of citations (h-index of 10) for theology. The fact that he is a contributor to the Four Views on the Book of Revelation book shows that he is the foremost proponent of the preterist viewpoint. Yes, this is niche - but still notable. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the person is quite notable as a main supporter of Preterism and Postmillennialism, contrary to the majority view, but nonetheless contributing significantly to give a balance of view. The article needs reliable sources. JohnThorne (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say he is notable as a supporter. SHOW he is notable via significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passes WP:PROF criteria 1 (only one criteria needed) and worldcat shows 1489 library holdings of his works which is usually a reliable indicator that his books have been widely reviewed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Having just voted to keep the article on one of his books, I feel I have to vote so, but I am strengthened in that view by looking at the length of the subject's bibliography. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A long list of non-notable products doesn't fill a criteria. Even writing a single notable book doesn't make the author independently notable.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are no sources whatsoever in the article so it does not meet WP:BASIC, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources - a search revealed no reviews of his books, discussions of his work or his contribution to theology - non-notable due to lack of reliable sources - Epinoia (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, WP:BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources, it does not require such sources to be in the article, i am reminded of WP:ARTN - "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.", as for book reviews, as brought out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Before Jerusalem Fell there have been, at least for this book, reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The book being notable doesn't make the author inherently notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• agreed, it may, however, indicate possible notableness ie. work or works significant or well-known with multiple reviews (see point 3 of WP:NAUTHOR) note: i am not saying that Gentry necessarily meets this hence my "Comment" above. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF #1.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2019 (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.